31–40 of 129 posts
Is this an important metric? I’d imagine a lot of articles across Wikipedia change over time and barely resemble the original article… which is a huge benefit, as opposed to printed encyclopaedias All that matters is that the content is factually accurate, which this seems to be
Just like a ship would be "christened" before its maiden voyage, it feels like the very first blob of text added to a draft of an article doesn't really constitute "the original" article. It's still "being built" until it gets a sufficiently decent grade. Right now it is still rated C, even though it's been around for decades. It's like an abandoned half-built ship (Which is not to say this tweet isn't uninteresting.…
Without the walled garden: https://wikis.world/@wikipedia/111587024591220062
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the first version was pretty rough. It was only a couple of sentences long, and included a bizarre, irrelevant tangent ("a modern embellishment"). It's no surprise that every part of that has long since been replaced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/1154003 TBH, the same is probably true of most Wikipedia articles which were created early in the site's history. It took a while for editors to settl…
Ha ha, "a modern embellishment" reads like the quirky early Web. (I had to go back and see if I had embarrassed myself when I stubbed in an article back in 2004. Meh — but just as well I stopped contributing to Wikipedia.)
Without the walled garden: https://wikis.world/@wikipedia/111587024591220062
If it's the same person running both accounts, I think it's funny that she snagged the @wikipedia handle, even for that domain.
https://wikis.world/@wikipedia also shows verified ownership of the Wikipedia homepage on the account page.
Is this an important metric? I’d imagine a lot of articles across Wikipedia change over time and barely resemble the original article… which is a huge benefit, as opposed to printed encyclopaedias All that matters is that the content is factually accurate, which this seems to be
Now its time to add a new article to Wikipedia with those original phrases and words rearranged to talk about something totally different, and then debate which one is the real Ship of Theseus article.
The solution to the Ship of Theseus is obviously that there is no Ship of Theseus. All things are just events in time, long moments where matter is organized into some structure for a while and then breaks apart again, and we assign names to those events. Some happen so quick that naming them is pointless and others are so slow to dissipate that a name becomes useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha ha, "a modern embellishment" reads like the quirky early Web. (I had to go back and see if I had embarrassed myself when I stubbed in an article back in 2004. Meh — but just as well I stopped contributing to Wikipedia.)
Why did you stop contributing?