If we want to do fact checking, which we do whether Congress has decided publishers are responsible for the content of their publications or not, the way to automate it is shown at https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/
Best regards, Jim
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I'd just stick to "The Free Encyclopedia". It's a thing we can really agree upon. (We can, right? Please tell me we can.)
But I am curious - who made this ad?
בתאריך יום א׳, 15 באפר׳ 2018, 15:54, מאת Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu@gmail.com
:
I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad linking to wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We used to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more honest than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of reliability and oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the discussion about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else uncomfortabe with this? -- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe