11–20 of 266 posts
…they couldn’t think of a good Wikipedia scandal from within the last decade? (The "why wikipedia is bad" bit at the start talks about things from 2005, 2007, and 2012.) Anyway, this might be pretty "it's hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it" since I work for the WMF, but I'm not really seeing much appeal from federation in this area. It certainly seems less relevant…
…they couldn’t think of a good Wikipedia scandal from within the last decade? (The "why wikipedia is bad" bit at the start talks about things from 2005, 2007, and 2012.) Anyway, this might be pretty "it's hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it" since I work for the WMF, but I'm not really seeing much appeal from federation in this area. It certainly seems less relevant…
Just search for anything remotely political and you will find a lot of bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just search for anything remotely political and you will find a lot of bias.
I'm not talking about whether there are scandals about Wikipedia. I'm saying it's weird what the article chose to use as a demonstration.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie...
…they couldn’t think of a good Wikipedia scandal from within the last decade? (The "why wikipedia is bad" bit at the start talks about things from 2005, 2007, and 2012.) Anyway, this might be pretty "it's hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it" since I work for the WMF, but I'm not really seeing much appeal from federation in this area. It certainly seems less relevant…
Just search for anything remotely political and you will find a lot of bias.
At worst it's going to have hundreds of conflicting versions of a document, where each federated node disagree on which is the current master of the document, because each node is fighting for their bias, or it's going to be Wikipedia, where there is one promoted version of the document with whatever bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> for the same reason that Wikipedia didn't exactly replace traditional encyclopedias It didn't? Compare https://www.worldbook.com/world-book-encyclopedia-2024.aspx : > As the only general reference encyclopedia still published today, The World Book Encyclopedia 2024 provides authoritative content on almost every topic to learners of all ages
Most traditional encyclopedias ceased to publish in the book form . Online encyclopedias are pretty much alive.
…they couldn’t think of a good Wikipedia scandal from within the last decade? (The "why wikipedia is bad" bit at the start talks about things from 2005, 2007, and 2012.) Anyway, this might be pretty "it's hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it" since I work for the WMF, but I'm not really seeing much appeal from federation in this area. It certainly seems less relevant…
Just search for anything remotely political and you will find a lot of bias.
For me Wikipedia is consistently amongst the least biased sources on the internet.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most traditional encyclopedias ceased to publish in the book form . Online encyclopedias are pretty much alive.
Their significance in public life was been almost completely replaced by Wikipedia, though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their significance in public life was been almost completely replaced by Wikipedia, though
Wikipedia articles are not consumed like traditional encyclopedias anyway. I would say that encyclopedias became much less relevant in general, but being one of the first influencial online encyclopedias, Wikipedia came to be used as a volatile source of information even though it didn't strive to be one.