So much for net neutrality. :(
Wikipedia Zero
51–60 of 84 posts
Re: Wikipedia Zero
#52I want to love this idea. I want to love wikipedia. But before I can do that, I need to be able to use wikipedia. And by use, I don't mean consume - I mean, be a full participant in a collective online encyclopedia. This is currently not possible. Rather than explain or give examples, let me challenge you to start any new article, or make any decent sized edit to any article, and let's assume for the discussion that…
No, give an example. I have created a number of articles, but on the other hand I am a (not very contributing) admin so I could be biased. But the difficult stuff I dealt with was in the areas where people argue (which you wouldnt realise). Most of the problems are where there are few contributions (history is terrible).
Re: Wikipedia Zero
#53I want to love this idea. I want to love wikipedia. But before I can do that, I need to be able to use wikipedia. And by use, I don't mean consume - I mean, be a full participant in a collective online encyclopedia. This is currently not possible. Rather than explain or give examples, let me challenge you to start any new article, or make any decent sized edit to any article, and let's assume for the discussion that…
What does that have to do with this? From the writeup it sounds like the Wikipedia Zero initiative is explicitly about the consumption side of the project ("accessing free knowledge"). Should they not do anything to make Wikipedia more accessible to non-contributing readers until every problem with contribution is resolved? The problems are separate and could be worked on separately -- why even assume that they can't…
Some stories will always have kneejerk reactions on sight of the 'trigger word'. Wikipedia story, regardless of content, will have 'dictorship!' detractors; feminism stories will have MRA detractors; Big Brand X will always have 'I hate X' detractors; political stories will always have 'taxes are theft and/or government is violence' detractors. All regardless of article content.
Re: Wikipedia Zero
#54I want to love this idea. I want to love wikipedia. But before I can do that, I need to be able to use wikipedia. And by use, I don't mean consume - I mean, be a full participant in a collective online encyclopedia. This is currently not possible. Rather than explain or give examples, let me challenge you to start any new article, or make any decent sized edit to any article, and let's assume for the discussion that…
Here is an article I created and authored with no undue interference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_Island_(Namibia) Sure, the topic is obscure and even sort of shitty, but you need to dig deep these days if you want to start a brand new page, simply because most topics are already covered.
Thats an ok article. Its probably not going to get much better alas. But its useful given the fact that its not a very large thing...
Re: Wikipedia Zero
#55I can't help pondering about the implications this move could consequently bring to the perceptions of net neutrality. Not that I see this project as something inherently bad, it is just the contrary, but it can give rise to some bad moral precedents.
If Wikipedia Zero traffic is free, but other traffic onerously priced, other apps and sites can just tunnel through Wikipedia edits. TCP/IP-over-WZ, anyone?
Re: Wikipedia Zero
#56[deleted]
Re: Wikipedia Zero
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've contributed casually and anonymously in the past without problem, but it's been a while and I thought I'd take you up on your challenge. But there's a complication: Wikipedia appears to be TOO COMPREHENSIVE. I can no longer find a subject of general interest which isn't fleshed out to near (or beyond) my level of knowledge. All my local landmarks are well represented, as are the interesting areas I've travelled.…
Here's a list of requested articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles Here are some stubs that might need expanding into proper articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stubs Here are articles that need more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_in...
It's been a few years, but I've started a number of articles on the "Requested Articles" list.
Most are pretty obscure, but thankfully Google Books and Amazon "search inside" gives access to information published before the web was born. There are also some services where you can ask a librarian online to look something up in a book for you. I've had some luck previously with http://www.nla.gov.au/askalibrarian
Re: Wikipedia Zero
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that have to do with this? From the writeup it sounds like the Wikipedia Zero initiative is explicitly about the consumption side of the project ("accessing free knowledge"). Should they not do anything to make Wikipedia more accessible to non-contributing readers until every problem with contribution is resolved? The problems are separate and could be worked on separately -- why even assume that they can't…
Some stories will always have kneejerk reactions on sight of the 'trigger word'. Wikipedia story, regardless of content, will have 'dictorship!' detractors; feminism stories will have MRA detractors; Big Brand X will always have 'I hate X' detractors; political stories will always have 'taxes are theft and/or government is violence' detractors. All regardless of article content.
Indeed.
When people feel very strongly about things (a couple of your examples touch upon human rights), and they feel they rarely have a platform to express those views, they'll take any platform they can get.
It's annoying but understandable.
Also keep in mind that it's annoying to see a viewpoint expressed if you disagree with it. When such a viewpoint is expressed, you are predisposed to view them as unwanted contributions to the discussion. I don't believe the parent comment is warranted here, but maybe he wasted a lot of his time trying to improve Wikipedia, and he feels very strongly about this.
Re: Wikipedia Zero
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some stories will always have kneejerk reactions on sight of the 'trigger word'. Wikipedia story, regardless of content, will have 'dictorship!' detractors; feminism stories will have MRA detractors; Big Brand X will always have 'I hate X' detractors; political stories will always have 'taxes are theft and/or government is violence' detractors. All regardless of article content.
Indeed. When people feel very strongly about things (a couple of your examples touch upon human rights), and they feel they rarely have a platform to express those views, they'll take any platform they can get. It's annoying but understandable. Also keep in mind that it's annoying to see a viewpoint expressed if you disagree with it. When such a viewpoint is expressed, you are predisposed to view them as unwanted con…
Edit: The parent comment, which was nearly half an hour old when I saw it, has been edited to remove the reference that I was against men's rights.
--
Oh, sod off. Don't put words in my mouth. I do not disagree with men's rights, but I do disagree the the hysterical bulk of MRA knobheads that create a hyperbolic smokescreen, preventing real issues from being properly discussed. There's a shitload of valid men's rights issues, from strong imbalance in parental rights in some jurisdiction, to massive imbalances in prisoner treatment, to sociological things like the shame of showing emotion or weakness. Similarly there are different health issues for men and women, each of which requires its own focus. None of this comes up in the usual MRA "wah wah, feminists are speaking! it's so hard to be a man!" self-indulgent whining. Neither is there much of a recognition that while men have problems, it's not a competition and it doesn't mean that women don't also have problems. There aren't 'teams' here, except in the eyes of extremists.
The thing is that MRA, here on HN and most other places, are free to submit anything they want any time they want. They most certainly have a platform to express those views. They don't though - they only rile up when they see a feminism post and have to 'put them in their place'. If they really were about "I just want to be heard", then they'd be posting articles, not tearing down others' stuff. I'd fucking love to see discussion on men's issues that didn't require putting women or feminists in their place. There are serious issues that men have to deal with, but the fucking hysterical over-wrought self-absorbed MRA commentry completely smothers real attempts at rational discussion. We can discuss and develop solutions to men's issues without having to be victorious over a third party.
I mean seriously, 'no platform to speak'? HN is a firehose, and there are plenty of MRA-favourable people here. What a joke. Post some quality articles on MRA and get some discussion going. In other words - be a 'man': put up or shut up.
Re: Wikipedia Zero
#60I want to love this idea. I want to love wikipedia. But before I can do that, I need to be able to use wikipedia. And by use, I don't mean consume - I mean, be a full participant in a collective online encyclopedia. This is currently not possible. Rather than explain or give examples, let me challenge you to start any new article, or make any decent sized edit to any article, and let's assume for the discussion that…
I see what you mean - Wikipedia essentially promotes oligopoly on knowledge. Relatively few privileged, old time crew, can enforce their views through bureaucratic like process. I am not sure that can be fixed though - what we can fix are which people get to be in charge of the article by some kind of peer voting mechanism where greater weight is given to academics who actually study the problem. To know which people…
I'm imagining the opacity of language that would result from this scheme, and it is frightening.