Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Gets Critical Reception from UK Press at Wikimania 2014
metasonix (650947) writes On Sunday the 2014 Wikimania conference in London closed. Wikimania is the major annual event for Wikipedia editors, insiders and WMF employees to meet face-to-face, give presentations and submit papers. Usually they are full of "Wiki-Love" and good feelings; but this year, as the Wikipediocracy blog summarized, Wikipedia and its "god-king" Jimmy Wales came under considerable fire from the UK media — a very unusual occurrence. And much of it was direct criticism of Wales himself, including a very hostile interview by BBC journalist James O'Brien, who had been repeatedly defamed in his Wikipedia biography by persons unknown.
What do these people have against Wales?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
If you're writing about someone else, put your fscking name to it. Wikitards are cowards.
A yahoo news article claims the general public in England trusts Wikipedia more than traditional news outlets.
And "defamed" or called out on something questionable? Genuinely asking, I never heard of this British journalist until today...
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Isn't this in the EU, where the right to alter history is already the law of he land?
So what is this reporter complaining about? If he doesn't like what someone is saying about him, all he had to do is erase the article from the internet and change history into whatever he likes. It's not like he's in the U.S.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Although I think this policy doesn't make a lot of sense even as it is, it's not quite that strict. The English Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against company names in usernames, but against shared "corporate" usernames not run by an individual. So you can't have an official "corporate account". You can however you use corporate names in your individual username, if you want to identify both yourself and your affiliation. In that case the suggestion is to pick a username that has both the organization name and some individual identifier, like User:AcmeLtdJohn or User:John@AcmeLtd. See here. The goal seems to be to ensure that accounts are operated by individuals rather than by press offices. Although I'm not sure policing the actual name is a particularly effective a way of enforcing that.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Wiki needs to be purchased.
Allow submissions, but have paid staff review them before they are made public. Contracting staff would work great. Accredited subject experts...no mouth breathing, mother's basement dwelling losers allowed.
You could also setup "franchises" to create and/or vet submissions.
Prohibit circular cites to other Wiki articles.
Create a rotating ownership of articles, not allowing anyone person to be able to control anything for more than some designated period of time.
These "owners" would only be known to the Wiki organization, not the public or each other. This would be to prevent collusion on articles and pushing of political agendas.
Clearly, the free for all it is now with all these cliques and fiefdoms isn't working out and damages the credibility of Wikipedia tremendously.
... the eternal source of truth!
The BBC especially has a role in communicating the ruling classes' idea of what the people should view as reality to the masses. Wikipedia disrupts this with rudimentary peer review. In my opinion this means that Wikipedia wins and BBC is quite bitter about it.
History has always been altered. Napoleon was the greatest general in the world not because of his generalling, but because he *bought the newspapers*.
People who had a bad reputation used to be able to move to another town. Now we have tracking.
That's good because it warns us when someone actually has molested children, but bad because it makes people unemployable even a thousand miles from their home because of stupid mistakes they made when they were 18 or 19, for example.
It's not black and white that all history should be preserved. Some history hurts the future more than it helps it. If tomorrow the whole world forgot the Israel-Palestine conflict, would it make the future better?
A series of self-portraits taken by Indonesian monkeys has sparked a copyright dispute between Wikipedia and a British wildlife photographer, says Wikipedia is using his copyrighted images without permission. Photographer David Slater complained that Wikipedia rejected his requests for the images to be removed from the website. Although the monkeys pressed the button, Slater set up the self-portraits by framing them and setting the camera on a tripod. The Wikimedia Foundation claims that no one owns the copyright to the images, because under U.S. law, 'copyright cannot vest in non-human authors', the monkeys in this case.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/wor...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The linked article is just tabloid journalism.
I wrote a comment about how the media experts were focussing on the wrong problems and how they clearly -surprisingly- knew very little about Wikipedia and its problems - BUT then I read the source article and found it's just an attack piece, cherry picking the least interesting parts of the conference and painting every controversy as being the fault of an iron-fist dictat from the Wikimedia Foundation.
What I learned: wikipediocracy is a nonsense website.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Well duh? Wiki is a has-been that has no basis on fact, and as criminal Jimmy says, " we refuse to allow facts on wikipedia".
Every one is missing the fact that people do get wrongfully accused. And the trouble is that the accusation comes up and people never bother to give the benefit of the doubt.
And when you have idiotic laws like our sex offender laws where you pee in public you are on the list and everyone who sees your name there thinks you had sex with some little kid.
People are cruel and very judgmental.
Reddit has that story covered very thoroughly. I suggest you go there.
After Jimmy gets to edit, he'll be welcomed as a hero, with roses tossed at his feet [Citation Needed]
Admins like DoRD, Bsadowski1, Smalljim and DeltaQuad who checkuser block innocent users. They blocked my account so many times that I have become a vandal in order to get revenge.
How about we just become more tolerant people and call out people who are not being tolerant people instead of trying to fight the realities of the spread of information . If someone doesn't get a job because they stole a candy bar 10 years ago, organize a boycott of that company for being such petty dicks.
Organizing boycotts like that seems like it would be capricious and unreliable. My idea is we could develop a system where companies that are overly picky about their employees' records in a way not related to their job, have more trouble finding employees and have to pay more for the same level of quality in an employee. Then, the company would have to lower the quality of its products, or raise their prices, and customers will note this and realize that the company is flawed, and decide to buy less of their products. Thus, the company would be directly punished for their arrogant hiring practices in proportion to their unfairness.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"Iain Duncan-Smith's Explosive Row With James O'Brien"