-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/wikipedia-bans-scientolog_n_208967....
Aside from the atrocious and misleading headline, I find it interesting that the Huffington Post published this, and that it is considered notable enough to get feature billing on their main page, with an image, as their 'lead' Media story.
S.
2009/5/30 Stephanie Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/wikipedia-bans-scientolog_n_208967.... Aside from the atrocious and misleading headline, I find it interesting that the Huffington Post published this, and that it is considered notable enough to get feature billing on their main page, with an image, as their 'lead' Media story.
It was on Fox News and in the Daily Mail. It's a mainstream story now.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/wikipedia-bans-scientolog_n_208967....
Aside from the atrocious and misleading headline, I find it interesting that the Huffington Post published this, and that it is considered notable enough to get feature billing on their main page, with an image, as their 'lead' Media story.
S.
Actually, pretty good, aside from the misleading headline. They not only quote from the decision, but actually link to it.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
Actually, pretty good, aside from the misleading headline. They not only quote from the decision, but actually link to it.
Fred
That was part of what interested me; the way that events on Wikipedia, and decisions made there, are now newsworthy events...stuff that merits coverage. Of course that has happened in the past, but most frequently it's been coverage of teens sexting, or men picking up 13-year-olds, or sites being hacked....splashy stuff that often is more about the sensation than actual relevance. This got noticed because of the Scientology angle, but it's otherwise low-key enough, simple reporting of a news event that might impact the reader. 5 years ago, it would have been ignored or sensationalized....instead, it's a regular story, reported upon as if it were a local court ruling.
I actually find that really refreshing, and an interesting measure of 'we have arrived'. It's not That Time yet, but it's an intimation of it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
Actually, pretty good, aside from the misleading headline. They not only quote from the decision, but actually link to it.
Fred
That was part of what interested me; the way that events on Wikipedia, and decisions made there, are now newsworthy events...stuff that merits coverage. Of course that has happened in the past, but most frequently it's been coverage of teens sexting, or men picking up 13-year-olds, or sites being hacked....splashy stuff that often is more about the sensation than actual relevance. This got noticed because of the Scientology angle, but it's otherwise low-key enough, simple reporting of a news event that might impact the reader. 5 years ago, it would have been ignored or sensationalized....instead, it's a regular story, reported upon as if it were a local court ruling.
I actually find that really refreshing, and an interesting measure of 'we have arrived'. It's not That Time yet, but it's an intimation of it.
There is more coming, if you could look at a history written 20,000 years from now, there will be a short section on intellectual developments in ancient times and two developments will be mentioned, Plato's Academy and Wikipedia.
Fred
Hm.
31K, start-class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_thought
79K, featured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Simpson
That probably explains it, Fred.
-Durova
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
Actually, pretty good, aside from the misleading headline. They not only quote from the decision, but actually link to it.
Fred
That was part of what interested me; the way that events on Wikipedia, and decisions made there, are now newsworthy events...stuff that merits coverage. Of course that has happened in the past, but most frequently it's been coverage of teens sexting, or men picking up 13-year-olds, or sites being hacked....splashy stuff that often is more about the sensation than actual relevance. This got noticed because of the Scientology angle, but it's otherwise low-key enough, simple reporting of a news event that might impact the reader. 5 years ago, it would have been ignored or sensationalized....instead, it's a regular story, reported upon as if it were a local court ruling.
I actually find that really refreshing, and an interesting measure of 'we have arrived'. It's not That Time yet, but it's an intimation of it.
There is more coming, if you could look at a history written 20,000 years from now, there will be a short section on intellectual developments in ancient times and two developments will be mentioned, Plato's Academy and Wikipedia.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. 31K, start-class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_thought 79K, featured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Simpson That probably explains it, Fred. -Durova
Well, to be fair, "history of Western thought" has a number of problems in its very premise that make it disinteresting for modern young people to deal with: 1) It uses the "east west" dichotomy, which automatically attaches to it certain qualitative assumptions and connotations about its distinctiveness from "eastern thought." 2) Taking active participation in the cementation of such concepts in the modern mind, when people really just want them obliterated and relegated to a pre-hyperconnected world's history, is anathema to the emergent collective mind. 3) And besides its a bit redundant; the concept of "western thought" is historical and needs not be qualified as "history." 4) And worse, the word "history" innately implies that the concept that any particularly "western" anything likewise has a similarly particular future, which violates 2.
And anyway Bart Simpson is just plain freakin' timeless, regardless of his novelty. Ah- the interesting dichotomy between relevant and historical information, and (corollary) the dichotomy between the crusty old wiki encyclopedia and the flashy new hyperintuitive one.
-Steve
if you could look at a history written 20,000 years from now, there will be a short section on intellectual developments in ancient times and two developments will be mentioned, Plato's Academy and Wikipedia.
Fred
Your list is missing many core developments - the printing press, the computer, writing and so on. Even with these, I'm afraid I don't share your optimism on Wikipedia. It's a great social innovation but has already fallen behind in many respects - particularly technology. Wikipedia has turned mainstream, but I'm not sure whether we'll pass the tests arising from that - BLP, vandalism, reputation etc.
I'm not sure the site will still have its pre-eminence in even 10 years' time, let alone 20,000 years.
----- "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 30 May, 2009 04:04:05 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site" - Huffington Post
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
Actually, pretty good, aside from the misleading headline. They not only quote from the decision, but actually link to it.
Fred
That was part of what interested me; the way that events on Wikipedia, and decisions made there, are now newsworthy events...stuff that merits coverage. Of course that has happened in the past, but most frequently it's been coverage of teens sexting, or men picking up 13-year-olds, or sites being hacked....splashy stuff that often is more about the sensation than actual relevance. This got noticed because of the Scientology angle, but it's otherwise low-key enough, simple reporting of a news event that might impact the reader. 5 years ago, it would have been ignored or sensationalized....instead, it's a regular story, reported upon as if it were a local court ruling.
I actually find that really refreshing, and an interesting measure of 'we have arrived'. It's not That Time yet, but it's an intimation of it.
There is more coming, if you could look at a history written 20,000 years from now, there will be a short section on intellectual developments in ancient times and two developments will be mentioned, Plato's Academy and Wikipedia.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2009-05-30 01:42:43 +0100, Stephanie Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com said:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/wikipedia-bans-scientolog_n_208967....
Aside
from the atrocious and misleading headline, I find it interesting that the Huffington Post published this, and that it is considered notable enough to get feature billing on their main page, with an image, as their 'lead' Media story.
S. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkoggQMACgkQdLl4k9IYqZrzMwCgnXCJuBnjOpzh26P4VPzRTwfx jEQAoIDKqAB2uJxuo6pL6AIAXlJjcwr9 =bey5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Register enjoyed calling ArbCom 'Wikicourt'.
Joe Anderson wrote:
The Register enjoyed calling ArbCom 'Wikicourt'.
The Register article was written by Cade Metz, who has written extensively about Wikipedia before and for some reason goes out of his way to insult and misrepresent how things work here. This article contained a particularly amusing example where he writes "Historically, the site's cult-like inner circle has aspired to some sort of Web 2.0 utopia in which everyone has an unfettered voice." Calling Wikipedians 'cult-like' in the context of an article about Scientology, which is often considered as the prime exemplar of such things these days? :)
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Calling Wikipedians 'cult-like' in the context of an article about Scientology, which is often considered as the prime exemplar of such things these days? :)
It's a standard riff, in Wikicritic circles. Little evidence is typically adduced, about on the level of "how else could it all work?", and "reacts like an ants nest when poked with stick, so must be run by social insects".
Charles