451–460 of 501 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve think people aren’t seeing the disclaimer, rather than ignoring it. An on screen notification that appears for first time users or when text is selected are possible user interfaces that would ensure people understand.
That's a completely unreasonable idea. Are you also suggesting that Google should also have a prominent disclaimer that appears before they give results that their search results may not be accurate, or might be misleading?
For example, I recommend anyone interested in math subjects to (also) check the Princeton companions to (applied) math.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691150390/th...
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691118802/th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When was the last time you read through a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica? Have you done an apples to apples comparison? No encyclopedia is perfect, but as far as I can tell the "standard" encyclopedias are a lot worse. My grandparents had bought a copy of Britannica decades ago and they had something like 50 years of its yearbooks. I would cite it sometimes and no one at school batted an eye. I remember reading thro…
Yes, but good authors are routinely removed from Wikipedia by a mob of less than great editors. Happens all the time. Happened to me. For a sample of my work, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Baker
I always thought you were a bit eccentric, but you seemed to be fairly sane otherwise, and managed to always keep yourself out of trouble. How did you manage to get yourself sitebanned of all things? %-(
I mean, arbcom reviewed it too, so it's not just a mob. Did you get tempted into saying or doing something unwise?
I hope you're doing ok now at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They claim they are not backed by any governments, but decline to say who is backing them. Just as an example I came across yesterday, the San Francisco Standard is "not backed by any government and rely on donations", but their funding comes from a billionaire venture capitalist. The same claim could be truthfully made by a site backed by a Russian oligarch just as well. And regardless, there's no evidence. I agree…
The former Wikimedia CEO (she left in 2021) is now on the Atlantic Council and currently serves on the US Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/katherine-maher/ Then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent Richard Boly as a representative of the Office of eDiplomacy to the 2012 Wikimania conference. At the time, Boly was "leading an ambitious State Department in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The former Wikimedia CEO (she left in 2021) is now on the Atlantic Council and currently serves on the US Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/katherine-maher/ Then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent Richard Boly as a representative of the Office of eDiplomacy to the 2012 Wikimania conference. At the time, Boly was "leading an ambitious State Department in…
Since I can't post the Pepe Silva/Red String Guy meme here directly, I'd be much obliged if you'd just imagine it for me. Thanks!
You can make of it what you will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since I can't post the Pepe Silva/Red String Guy meme here directly, I'd be much obliged if you'd just imagine it for me. Thanks!
Each of the above is true and verifiable by the links posted. You can make of it what you will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every now and then I like to read through Wikipedia pages for things I know more than the average person on. It keeps me skeptical of the things I read on there. It's always frustrating for me to see things in Wikipedia I know are wrong because I was in the room when a particular decision was made, or because I personally made the decision. I gave up making corrections because they would always get reverted by someon…
If there is no decent reference available, IMHO the knowledge is useless anyways and might as well be deleted. Can anybody prove me wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As valued as SciHub and LibGen may be, they are repositories of mostly disjoint materials. They are not seamlessly interconnected. As a very basic bar to strive for, I don't think either offer full text search over their contents. Any recommendedation for third party tools that might help?
Many! In biology and medicine, pubmed is the most common ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ ) . For general purpose you can use google scholar ( https://scholar.google.com/ ). When you find an interesting article, both these tools will allow you to both seach backwards for articles that it cites, and search forwards for articles that cite it in turn. Repeated application can quickly help you expand the pool of potent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each of the above is true and verifiable by the links posted. You can make of it what you will.
Yes and what I make of it in relation to information quality on Wikipedia is the red string meme. Classic conspiracy-theory boogeyman nonsense, all allusion and vaguery.
I still find it interesting though that the organisation attracts so many politicos. And as far as the Wikimedia Foundation's Strategy 2030 is concerned, it's absolutely relevant. A lot of people in the volunteer community felt that the result of the strategy discussions was kind of preordained, rather than a reflection of the community's will. ("By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us ..." etc.)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/...
There is more indirect influence on content by the Wikimedia Foundation nowadays, where they fund community organizers to increase coverage in a particular topic area.
An early example that taught them how not to do this (as well as a clear example of undue donor influence) was the Belfer Center scandal:
https://thewikipedian.net/2014/04/02/bats-in-the-belfer-a-be...
That was a scandal only because the Wikipedia volunteer community paid attention.
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-paid-editing-scanda...
A more recent example that seems unobjectionable is this one:
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/09/22/join-the-organizer-lab...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and what I make of it in relation to information quality on Wikipedia is the red string meme. Classic conspiracy-theory boogeyman nonsense, all allusion and vaguery.
The Wikimedia Foundation does not edit Wikipedia. So what I said above has got little to do with the information quality on the level of an individual article. I still find it interesting though that the organisation attracts so many politicos. And as far as the Wikimedia Foundation's Strategy 2030 is concerned, it's absolutely relevant. A lot of people in the volunteer community felt that the result of the strategy…
In that case I wish you luck in finding the right place to discuss it.