Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Zero

wikimediafoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#61

Post by gbog »

vacri wrote: post #53
smacktoward wrote: post #15

Earlier 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.

> will always [...] will always [...] will always

Can't we hope a bit that on HN a little of auto education is possible?

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#62

Post by aaron695 »

rsync wrote: post #14

I 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…

> let me challenge you to start any new article, or make any decent sized edit to any article

In essence this is a stupidity filter.

This has been mentioned many times before where other people have gone off topic to discuss this.

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#63

Post by wrongc0ntinent »

itcmcgrath wrote: post #2

I haven't looked at the details, but at initial glance - I love the direction. While Wikipedia my not be the shining-light of data accuracy, it definitely fits the bill for achieving good: "Perfect is the enemy of good" [1] I believe removing barriers to knowledge access for everyone is a step in the right direction. This tries to solve a single barrier. We still have a long way to go. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

Yes. And the net neutrality article on wikipedia is pretty comprehensive, maybe someone from sub-saharan Africa will come up with a better implementation ;)

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#64

Post by hacker789 »

vacri wrote: post #59
hacker789 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 righ…

> 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.

My post had no replies when I edited.

I removed that reference because I felt it sounded like I was accusing you of being against men's rights. That wasn't my intention.

> 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.

Definitely. However, when the solutions that third-wave feminists put forth further disadvantage men in areas like unemployment and education—or, to be more diplomatic, when someone passionate about men's rights feels that way—it's completely reasonable for them to respond with their objections.

>The thing is that MRA, here on HN and most other places, are free to submit anything they want any time they want.

Many people who passionately oppose third-wave feminist activism also oppose discussion of politics on HN, period. So they don't consider this to be a platform for their political views unless they're responding to activism already on the front page.

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#65

Post by voltagex_ »

nl wrote: post #57
DanBC wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hey, that's my "local" library!

Trove is also amazing, but fairly biased towards Australian history (for obvious reasons).

http://trove.nla.gov.au/

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#66

Post by snogglethorpe »

throwaway092834 wrote: post #19
rsync wrote: post #14

I 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'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.…

Hmm?

In my experience, that's exactly where Wikipedia often shines: many articles offer quite broad coverage of their subject, approach it from multiple points of view that do a good job of making it accessible for people of many levels of knowledge.

This especially seems to be true of articles on math. Whereas something like mathworld.wolfram.com usually offers a concise, accurate, and well-written article on a subject, it's quite often at a fairly high-level, and may be hard to understand for someone missing some background. The equivalent Wikipedia article on the other hand, is often much longer, because it approaches the topic from many points of view: concise technical explanations suitable for a mathematician, more intuitive (but maybe less rigorous) explanations aimed at a general audience, implementation hints and algorithmic summaries for those interested in using it in a computer application, etc.

This sort of shotgun coverage can result in rambling, lengthy, and sometimes redundant articles (it's usually pretty clear that many different authors have edited it, and the collaboration mechanisms are far from perfect), but I've found it immensely helpful when trying to understand something which is just a bit beyond my level. Seeing the same subject explained from multiple points of view is often just what's needed to make things click.

That's one of the reasons I love Wikipedia... it's not always the most elegant, but it's proved a very practical and helpful resource.

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#67

Post by xerophtye »

MattGrommes wrote: post #37
throwaway092834 wrote: post #19

Earlier 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.…

I've often wondered why Wikipedia doesn't push the Simple English Wikipedia more: http://simple.wikipedia.org/ It only has 100k articles but I've found a bunch of excellent stuff there.

It's great for kids. I usually tell my 10 yr old sister to use it (English is her second language but she's pretty good at it)

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#68

Post by xerophtye »

throwaway092834 wrote: post #19
rsync wrote: post #14

I 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'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.…

This looks like a good place to start. I dont have much information about any of these but some of these look interesting (like the Hunter-gatherer Algorithm)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/A...

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#69

Post by eliben »

rsync wrote: post #14

I 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…

Can you try to give more details than snark? What particular experience has left you so scarred?

I have never had a problem doing Wikipedia edits for stuff I found inaccurate or needed more details. I didn't always go back to check but whenever I did, the edits were still there / no one has removed or edited them away.

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#70

Post by swalling »

tmcb wrote: post #3

I 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.

For me, the moral precedent is giving millions of people free access to vital educational information.

People who want and need access to Wikipedia Zero are like these South African high school students, living in a slum: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/19/movement-for-free-acce...

Post reply on HN