441–450 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia has at least 15 million articles in languages other than English and around 7 million English articles. Are you asserting that it is standard that Americans are writing and moderating all of these articles in other languages?
In my country, one section mentions English articles (written by amercans) to prove their point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me those links you provided, indicate a lot, of what is wrong for me with wikipedia. Because it is extremely hard to figure out what is going on. Lots of mysterious abbreviations. Unclear timeline. I still don't really know it, it seems the scandal is, that he had a sockpuppet account? And there is only "private" evidence (meaning not public)? "The Arbitration Committee has determined through private evidence, inc…
"Really, really hard to figure out for someone just having a quick look into the topic." Sometimes things are genuinely complicated. If you want to understand the hardest, most elaborate forms of Wikipedia community management you're going to need to work really hard at figuring out what's going on. Community dynamics at this scale, and with this level of bad actors, are not something that can be explained in a few p…
More and more, especially in engineering, I am in contact with people who just want everything to be easy to understand in TikTok length video clips or short posts.
Some things are hard to understand, dynamic systems especially, black or white answers do not exist.
(Sorry for the slightly off-topic/meta rant. This hit a nerve by me.)
Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. There is a long legacy of authoritarian regimes attacking curious places, universities, historians, museums, books or any institution that grounds itself in reality which provide…
Aren't you making their point though? The ADL and other Jewish organizations have pointed out that aside from articles about Israel that articles about or mention Jewish topics generally have been editing with disinformation or that made Jews out to be the aggressors. I agree with you that in order to believe in the ideals of liberal democracy that we must have a core belief in truth. And it's absolutely true that th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a source, so "reliable" here has to mean "reliably presenting a full range of notable sources". No editor should be saying you can rely on claims found in Wikipedia, except in the sense of relying that the claims are in the sources. (Except the claim as stated isn't always in the source anyway. Best to check.)
I found Molly White's video here really useful for helping me understand the Reliable Sources policy: https://blog.mollywhite.net/become-a-wikipedian-transcript/ > The way we determine reliability is typically based on the reputation for editorial oversight, and for factchecking and corrections. For example, if you have a reference book that is published by a reputable publisher that has an editorial board and that h…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/P...
Here's the letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocNyx34Et19sKtlta0bTPPzSPcp... No claims, no evidence. No sources, except "it has come to my attention" and "information received by my office".
What is happening is very scary. Many people don't seem to care about any evidence or sources. They blindly follow whatever lies that their leaders say. I think this has been the case at anytime in history. However, now, with the internet, it is easy to spread such lies to mass and easy for such leaders to make blind followers.
If you don't have objective sources, it's easier to lead people around by the nose -hence the attack.
Here's the letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocNyx34Et19sKtlta0bTPPzSPcp... No claims, no evidence. No sources, except "it has come to my attention" and "information received by my office".
Yikes that letter is alarming. > In view of public criticisms, including those expressed by Wikipedia Co-Founder Dr. Lawrence M. Sanger, regarding the opacity of editorial processes and the anonymity of contributors, what justification does the Foundation offer for shielding editors from public scrutiny? Larry Sanger has been criticizing Wikipedia for more than 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Cri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia has at least 15 million articles in languages other than English and around 7 million English articles. Are you asserting that it is standard that Americans are writing and moderating all of these articles in other languages?
In my country, one section mentions English articles (written by amercans) to prove their point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Really, really hard to figure out for someone just having a quick look into the topic." Sometimes things are genuinely complicated. If you want to understand the hardest, most elaborate forms of Wikipedia community management you're going to need to work really hard at figuring out what's going on. Community dynamics at this scale, and with this level of bad actors, are not something that can be explained in a few p…
Thank you. More and more, especially in engineering, I am in contact with people who just want everything to be easy to understand in TikTok length video clips or short posts. Some things are hard to understand, dynamic systems especially, black or white answers do not exist. (Sorry for the slightly off-topic/meta rant. This hit a nerve by me.)
The English Wikipedia is a massive target for influence campaigns. I don't think there are any other communities as resilient as it. Just an example: There's certain individual or group that edited under the name "Icewhiz", was banned, and now operates endless sockpuppet accounts in the topic area to influence Wikipedia's coverage on the Middle East. One of them was an account named "Eostrix", that spent years making…
"DEAR AMERICAN FRIENDS IN THE ADMINISTRATION KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF THE WIKIPEDIA"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. The fact that someone so terrible got 99% approval and only one anonymous investigator was able to stop them makes me think that it's likely a lot of other terrible admins who didn't have an anonymous investigator go after them probably go through the process. And the times I've brought up the fact that Wikipedia can be unreliable before, I've had numerous editors come in and claim that wasn't true and that pe…
I wonder if there's room in using AI to gather past edits of someone, as part of vetting, and use the sentiment analysis to check how neutral their biases are.