[flagged]
Wikipedia is has nothing to do with free speech. It's there to (in my words) document the world around us. To explain things factually, or as factually as we can. It's not about anyone's opinions or ideas.
Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
21–30 of 57 posts
Re: Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
#22[flagged]
While there are many legitimate questions about Wikipedia’s openness to new edits and editors, this is such a wild topic derail that I find it a little suspicious. Are you arguing that this isn’t a great loss for freedom of speech?
Re: Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you making sure to include citations to proven reliable sources to back up your contributions? If so, then you can dispute any reverts on the article's Talk page. My experience with Wikipedia is that they are extraordinarily open and fair, and honestly they give more benefit of the doubt to editors than most of them deserve.
Certainly the task of determining "the truth" is a difficult one, but Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources is not very good and basically just means "mainstream, well-funded news organization."
This is the better criticism of Wikipedia. But it's really not a criticism of Wikipedia directly - it's more of a indictment on how media creates Zeitgeists and reality conforms to them.
Re: Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
My crime was writing that flying saucers really exist, but for some reason I didn't get reverted. Maybe it was a different time O:-) (if you can read wikipedia diffs here you go. It's in the edit summary, which is one of the two reasons the article still exists : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evoluon&diff=prev... )
[deleted]
Re: Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
#25[flagged]
I don't think it makes sense to equate English speaking Wikipedia (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) with a different language Wikipedia. Different cultures, most likely fewer people sitting around spending every free moment starting drama on wikipedia
Re: Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly the task of determining "the truth" is a difficult one, but Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources is not very good and basically just means "mainstream, well-funded news organization."
This is the better criticism of Wikipedia. But it's really not a criticism of Wikipedia directly - it's more of a indictment on how media creates Zeitgeists and reality conforms to them.
But it is a criticism of Wikipedia directly. There is no reason why they couldn't come up with a more thoughtful, complete validation method. Instead, they just default to a last-century model of trust.
Re: Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
#27Bad headline. What is dissolved is the non profit organization that exists in Russia to host events for Russian Wikipedians and other tasks. ru.wikipedia.org != Wikipedia Russia.
The headline is right. "Wikimedia Russia" dissolved not "Russian Wikipedia"
I cannot stop chuckling at your comment.
Reminds me so hard if the Monty Python sketch:
Re: Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the better criticism of Wikipedia. But it's really not a criticism of Wikipedia directly - it's more of a indictment on how media creates Zeitgeists and reality conforms to them.
But it is a criticism of Wikipedia directly. There is no reason why they couldn't come up with a more thoughtful, complete validation method. Instead, they just default to a last-century model of trust.
It's hard to imagine that Wikipedia with a centralized authority to handle "validation" would be remotely the same Wikipedia.
Re: Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
#29[flagged]
Wikipedia is has nothing to do with free speech. It's there to (in my words) document the world around us. To explain things factually, or as factually as we can. It's not about anyone's opinions or ideas.
Still, free speech is what allows such a project. And Wikipedia also explains philosophical opinions, political positions, NSFW concepts, etc., which is only possible to that extent due to free speech.
So I would disagree both that Wikipedia has nothing to do with free speech, and that it’s not about anybody’s opinions or ideas.
Re: Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
#30[flagged]
Are you making sure to include citations to proven reliable sources to back up your contributions? If so, then you can dispute any reverts on the article's Talk page. My experience with Wikipedia is that they are extraordinarily open and fair, and honestly they give more benefit of the doubt to editors than most of them deserve.
A lot of citations just use Fox News, Vox, CNN, etc. as fact.
Wikipedia isn't very serious about scientific/objective truth.