11–20 of 166 posts
> Real-time access to Knowledge Wikipedia knowledge is basically "democracy" knowledge, i.e. the more people decided to support an idea, the "truer" it gets. That's not knowledge at all!
Looking forward to seeing the details on how they will handle revenue sharing with all of the people who contribute to them.
Looking forward to seeing the details on how they will handle revenue sharing with all of the people who contribute to them.
^1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
> Real-time access to Knowledge Wikipedia knowledge is basically "democracy" knowledge, i.e. the more people decided to support an idea, the "truer" it gets. That's not knowledge at all!
That politicians get to scrub their pages shows there are cracks in places, but overall it's generally pretty ok
That's the kind of glowing praise I'd get from my 8th grade Geometry teacher when I got a C on a test.
I was hoping more groups did stuff like this. The free sites doing it could handle some copyright issues if their EULA had a built-in license for distribution. In my previous analysis, (IIRC) I found that Wikipedia articles were under a copyleft license with attribution requirements. Does how Wikipedia Enterprise delivers this bypass that where neither use nor derivatives have those requirements? Or are they ignoring…
The API responses do include information about the content license, which differs a bit between different wikimedia properties: https://helpcenter.enterprise.wikimedia.com/hc/en-us/article...
(I work for the WMF. I don't work on the Enterprise stuff, or have any insider knowledge of it. E.g. I used Google as an illustrative example, but I have no idea whether they're actually using this service. :D)
Yet this also exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
Which is a good thing. The entire corpus is CC-licensed and anyone can download it for free. If you want a real-time API, performance SLAs, machine parsable formats, support etc. then pay for it.
I submit this link after coming across this site while Googling for info on parsing wikipedia "infoboxes". I plan to check out their "Article Structured Contents (BETA)" API. Improving infoboxes to be machine-readable seems important. And it would be bad if didn't do this because it's a revenue stream for them.
> Real-time access to Knowledge Wikipedia knowledge is basically "democracy" knowledge, i.e. the more people decided to support an idea, the "truer" it gets. That's not knowledge at all!
When was it that you last verified something by yourself, with an experiment?
You didn't test the things you know. You know things because you could see they were the consensus, and so you had no reason to challenge them.
If an idea is disputed, then you trust it less. If it comes from a small number of reputable sources, then you trust it more than a large numbers of unreliable people. So with the Wiki.
Human knowledge isn't from the platonic realm. Human knowledge isn't checked by a theorem prover. You get almost all of your knowledge from other people, and you have no choice but to trust them for almost all of it.
> Real-time access to Knowledge Wikipedia knowledge is basically "democracy" knowledge, i.e. the more people decided to support an idea, the "truer" it gets. That's not knowledge at all!
Information on Wikipedia is meant to be backed up by a verifiable source, partly to prevent a situation where knowledge only makes it onto Wikipedia if enough of the editors agree that it should be true.
Molly White made a great video and write-up explaining this a few months ago: https://blog.mollywhite.net/become-a-wikipedian-transcript/#...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That politicians get to scrub their pages shows there are cracks in places, but overall it's generally pretty ok
> overall it's generally pretty ok That's the kind of glowing praise I'd get from my 8th grade Geometry teacher when I got a C on a test.
Looking forward to seeing the details on how they will handle revenue sharing with all of the people who contribute to them.
If you wanted revenue sharing, you were at the wrong party. You wanted the Microsoft-sponsored "Open Source is Communism" party down the block.