Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikimedia Foundation Joins the World Wide Web Consortium (wikimediafoundation.org)

Posted by msmash on from the marching-forward dept.

Gilles Dubuc, writing for the Wikimedia Foundation: We're excited to announce that we've become a member of the W3C, the main international standards organization for the World Wide Web. Founded by Tim Berners-Lee in 1994, W3C works with hundreds of organizations to ensure that the web's basic building blocks -- like HTML or CSS -- remain consistent across browsers, platforms, and more. You can learn more about what W3C does over on Wikipedia. Joining the W3C fits right into our 2030 strategy, which calls on the Wikimedia movement to "become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and [ensure that] anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us."

The underlying technologies and standards of the web are a core part of the infrastructure that can facilitate knowledge equity, and so to achieve our vision, we need to participate and collaborate in designing the future of the web. As part of working groups, we will be collaborating directly with other major stakeholders on the web. Through attending meetings, providing feedback, helping with the drafting of standards, and performing some of the technical work necessary to put standards together (as well as participating in the decision-making process of their design), we're going to contribute to shaping a future of the web that helps everyone create and share free knowledge.

26 comments

  1. Wikimedia foundation joins pro-DRM group by themusicgod1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The EFF left the W3C for good reason. Why is Wikipedia not following their lead?

    Maybe banning tor users from participating is causing them to lose this part of the big picture.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:Wikimedia foundation joins pro-DRM group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would wikipedia want pseudo-obfuscated TOR users fucking up their wikis? No thanks kiddo. That's not the reason anyway.

    2. Re: Wikimedia foundation joins pro-DRM group by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The only ones who really matter in the web consortium are the browser makers. They are like the UN security council: yeah, there are other countries in the UN, but they don't really matter.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Wikimedia foundation joins pro-DRM group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they joined so the big patrons behind wikimedia (already on the w3c) can whitewash their innitiatives for a better web meaning more DRM, javascript spying and waste of electricity and net bandwidth

    4. Re:Wikimedia foundation joins pro-DRM group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It almost sounds like... you want these things to be regulated?

    5. Re: Wikimedia foundation joins pro-DRM group by tepples · · Score: 1

      The only ones who really matter in the web consortium are the browser makers.

      Such as a browser maker allied with Wikimedia: Mozilla.

      (Source: "Wikimedia Foundation collaborates with two initiatives: Mozilla’s OSSN and TeachingOpenSource’s POSSE".)

    6. Re:Wikimedia foundation joins pro-DRM group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia is a dishonest and unethical echo chamber for incel loser mods who have nothing better to do than ensure nobody touches "their" articles.

    7. Re: Wikimedia foundation joins pro-DRM group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Jimbo needs money?

    8. Re:Wikimedia foundation joins pro-DRM group by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

      This is just a rephrasing of "what, you mean there's going to be a wiki that any old joe on the internet can edit? Interesting concept but there's no way in hell that it'll ever get to be as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica" type comments we saw on Kuro5hin/slashdot when it was originally suggested.
      In fact, people *can ad do* add valid enough content to create encyclopedic knowledge on the internet, whether or not they are people who take their privacy seriously - thanks for coming out

      --
      GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  2. Good for both parties by koavf · · Score: 1

    Both entities will be able to better complete their visions by working together. We sometimes forget just how precious something like a standards-based Web and free knowledge are. I've supported the WMF and W3C for almost 20 years and I always will. This is great news.

    1. Re:Good for both parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if you're just trolling or if you really are that ignorant.

      Wikimedia and W3C are not about "free information" at all. They're about "free information that agrees with our political bent that we choose for you to consume."

      Bunch of leftist hacks, the both of them.

  3. Re:Isn't this the Russian Front For NoGoodDeads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How ba-ad ba-ad can I be?
    'Look at me doing where you mommy pees'

    -Assanage

  4. Wikimedia is not a good organization by xack · · Score: 2

    They basically enabled fake news to flourish by letting alternative voices get deleted as "undue weight" or "not notable". Back up your favorite articles on W3c.org, because the deletionists will be coming.

    1. Re:Wikimedia is not a good organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have "a right" to control their information, is that what you're crying about? Go start your own alt-wiki bullshit page. If it's more useful information than the original, expect to supplant it. Otherwise? Bottle your sour grapes kiddo.

    2. Re: Wikimedia is not a good organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they are openly biased when it comes to their sources. Any mildly controversial article has an activist staking out their turf and deciding what counts as the local truth. But no one cares, as long as overall, it has the right bias...

    3. Re: Wikimedia is not a good organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try having a wiki with actual facts, watch how the search engines bury you for "copying" from Wikipedia, even if your content is completely original.

    4. Re:Wikimedia is not a good organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the Affiliations section. Wikimedia staff are all paid PR agents of the fringe left wing of the Democratic Party and this guy named Rothschild, they all work out of the same office at the Berkman Center at Harvard University, but "there is no cabal" and talking about it is a "baseless conspiracy theory."

      Also, you are only allowed to cite media sources owned by the Rothschilds. Any media outlet that is not owned by the Rothschilds is "fringe" and "unreliable" and is not allowed to be cited on Wikipedia whether it has a good reputation for accuracy or not. Pointing out that the Rothschild media gets caught lying all of the time will be considered grounds for banning you as a "right-wing troll" because the independent media pointing this out are all "right-wing" "white-supremacist" "blogs" in their eyes.

      So the worst crime family in the world just got onto the body that controls the WWW because they rode in on the reputation that Wikipedia used to have ten years ago before they utterly corrupted it.

  5. I approve it. Thumbs up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia, it's internet's basic institution. Right after all the search engines deployed since 1994.

  6. Re:Isn't this the Russian Front For NoGoodDeads? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    You misspelled "raper"...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  7. DRM Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as broadcast television viewers have the choice of not watching annoying reality content, awards shows, and other cheaply produced stuff, web users have the choice of not supporting sites with DRM content. As Google News has proven, the same content is available from many other sources. Also, I get my science from arXiv, not from some paywalled publisher.

  8. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More fake news weirdos in the WE. What could go wrong?

  9. Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taxation targetted at specific entities is unconstitutional, as it violates equal protection.

  10. The don't even use the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do they care about HTML when they just use their wiki language and only translate it to HTML for viewing. If they plan to keep using it, they should instead focus on software or browser extensions that can view and edit wiki pages directly. The web is broken beyond repair, the only way forward is to come up wwith something better.

  11. Fantastic! by phenylphenol · · Score: 1

    Seems like an excellent development to me. Wikimedia has done remarkable things, and Wikipedia has probably done the most to protect both expression and authoratitivity on the open web. Bravi.

  12. Cap in hands by null+etc. · · Score: 1

    Great, maybe they can turn their desperate pleas for money into an official W3C standard.