421–430 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is often wrong once you stray from mainstream topics. Subspecialties often have 1-2 super-contributors, whose blind spots and misunderstandings become part of Wikipedia. Plenty of articles also have no actual citations of their technical content.
You, and everyone else, are welcome to flag or fix every single one of these that are found.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm already annoyed I have to wipe my devices whenever I travel there or risk a $5000 fine and maybe jail time if they want the password and I don't give it up. Australia has to be the least free country in the anglosphere.
What? The US has been pulling this crap since 9/11, so I'm not sure what you're going on about IRT the Anglo-Sphere. The US only has privacy rights for Americans. As a non-citizen traveler, they routinely belittle, humiliate, and violate such privacy, demanding access to people's phones at risk of detention (or at best being sent back home) being exactly one of the things they do. Ask almost any Canadian what they th…
Australia is worse than the US for this, and worse than any other anglo country.
> The US only has privacy rights for Americans.
Yes, and Australia doesn't even have privacy rights for Australians. Hence worse.
> As a non-citizen traveler, they routinely belittle, humiliate, and violate such privacy, demanding access to people's phones at risk of detention (or at best being sent back home) being exactly one of the things they do. Ask almost any Canadian what they think about the border in the last 20 years.
The Australian border force isn't any better for this, you just don't see it because I presume you're an Australian citizen. The UK and Canada can be pretty bad as well. Shitty border personal are not unique to the US.
> I wipe my personal data when traveling to the US, which I pretty much only do for work.
The difference in the US is if you are a citizen or green card holder you can tell them to go suck eggs, and the worst they can do is confiscate your device.
In Australia, even if you're a citizen, you face IIRC a $5000 fine and possibly some jail time. So that's much worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What kind of thing do you have on your PC they’d care about? You get that's not the point, right?
This seemed to be a fairly explicit case of “I hate traveling to Australia because of so and so”. Sure, it’s retarded in general, but that was not what I was talking/asking about. They apparently both have a need to travel to Australia, _and_ data on their PC that requires wiping. That makes me curious what kind of data that could be.
All data requires wiping because no government has a right to it without a warrant or as part of an investigation, no matter what the data is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We have seen it happen many, many times. Have we? I can only think of wartime censorship (which, even if it was sold for protection from enemy propaganda, was always about morale, so doesn't apply here), and authoritarian regimes, which also don't apply here.
Yes, we have. Those same people who whine about "misinformation" are repeatedly caught lying to the public - for the public's benefit, of course, which they get to define. Which only makes sense - if you think the public is not smart enough to be trusted with figuring what is true and what is false by themselves, and needs a gatekeeper class to define it for them, then it's only a little step from that to deciding th…
Again, when? Concrete examples if there are so many!
> if you think the public is not smart enough to be trusted with figuring what is true and what is false by themselve
I mean, whatever one thinks of censorship this is objectively true. We have flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, people who drank bleach against Covid, people who believe Ukraine started the war against Russia, the pizzagate nonsense, people who believe in the magical powers of rhino horns and shark fin soups and on and on and on. There are, objectively, a lot of very stupid and/or impressionable people out there in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And if you’re certain they are wrong you can always try to correct them, or create a competing topic? I’ve tried that before, and it’s often not worth the time. The lord of the article is often an expert Wikipedia Editor and rules lawyer with endless time to argue and revert even when they have no expert or even basic knowledge about the subject.
In order to maintain some semblance of process, Wikipedia has to approximate what is true by relying on the consensus from reputable sources, not reality itself. This means that experts are often not who you want editing an article, because experts are often poorly positioned to know what the general public knows, and what consensus is from outside their area of expertise. E.g., I have published research that contrad…
I would argue the opposite, since consensus from reputable sources is not the same as consensus of the general public, and unless it's a subject of study in multiple fields, the consensus in their field is their area of expertise.
Academic scholarship is generally preferred over lay sources, though there are caveats and individual instances of primary research are rarely considered indicative of consensus (usually review articles and other secondary sources are significantly preferred). However, if you do disagree with any information on Wikipedia, even if it's based on only your own primary research, I would strongly encourage you to at least tag the statements with a {{dubious}} or {{disputed inline}}[1] tag so that it can be discussed, or make an edit request[2] if you're not comfortable making the change yourself.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed_inline [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody says Wikipedia is perfect. The fact that you can point out that certain content are wrong proves what the GP said — “[It] has whole history available, has little conflicts of interest and has transparent editorial guidelines and process.” It’s also worth pointing out that it could be you who has blind spots, not the contributors. And if you’re certain they are wrong you can always try to correct them, or creat…
> It’s also worth pointing out that it could be you who has blind spots, not the contributors. And if you’re certain they are wrong you can always try to correct them, or create a competing topic? No, it's not me who has the blind spots in the cases I have seen, sorry. Also, they are not worth the work to correct, since the overlord of the niche is usually someone with far too much time on their hands to argue, even…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia doesn't currently have the technical ability to block a single article on a country basis. They had 36 hours to comply with this order and so took what action they could. The goal is to win the long-term appeal battle and avoid the entire site getting blocked permanently, but if they didn't comply with the short-term legal requirements, that path becomes much harder. Lose a battle but win the war.
>Wikipedia doesn't currently have the technical ability to block a single article on a country basis. I can imagine. That's too much to ask to a company that's been on business for 20 years and have received 1.3B USD in total. I could come up w/ a solution to that in an afternoon on my $5/mo server but yeah "you don't understand the scale of wikipedia" or some bs. Not "donating" a single cent ever again.
I can understand shutting it down to Indian IP ranges, but the whole world? I think they should have stood up to the Indian court and took wikipedia offline for India, otherwise soon there will be avalanche of demands to take down anything negative about modi, trump, xi, and putin.
> Hi everyone, I spoke to the team at the WMF yesterday afternoon in a quick meeting of the board. [...] note that I am not a lawyer and that I am not here speaking for the WMF nor the board as a whole. I'm speaking personally as a Wikipedian. [...] I can tell you that I went into the call initially very skeptical of the idea of even temporarily taking down this page and I was persuaded very quickly by a single fact that changed my mind: if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here. For those who are concerned that this is somehow the WMF giving in on the principles that we all hold so dear, don't worry. I heard from the WMF quite strong moral and legal support for doing the right thing here - and that includes going through the process in the right way. Prior to the call, I thought that the consequence would just be a block of Wikipedia by the Indian government. While that's never a good thing, it's always been something we're prepared to accept in order to stand for freedom of expression. We were blocked in Turkey for 3 years or so, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/1253528244#C...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seemed to be a fairly explicit case of “I hate traveling to Australia because of so and so”. Sure, it’s retarded in general, but that was not what I was talking/asking about. They apparently both have a need to travel to Australia, _and_ data on their PC that requires wiping. That makes me curious what kind of data that could be.
> _and_ data on their PC that requires wiping. All data requires wiping because no government has a right to it without a warrant or as part of an investigation, no matter what the data is.