That Google ad (describing Wikipedia as the fact-checked encyclopedia) is
still the top result when I search for “wikipedia” in Australia.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 8:57 pm, Isaac Olatunde <reachout2isaac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Leigh, I disagree that all projects are hostile to
outsiders. When someone
edit in a language they do not speak and use machine to translate contents
for example and refused to stop after multiple warnings, a block in such
case may not be considered an "hostile" response. That being said, I
completely agree with Rob that fact-checked encyclopedia is more
appropriate considering the hostility in some language Wikipedia, notably
the English Wikipedia. How do you describe a Wikipedia where someone create
their first article and got deleted and when the page creator approached
the deleting admin on why their article got deleted and the response they
received is "Kindly have the decency to create a decent article ", "count
yourself lucky, I don't talk to IP address "?
Regards,
Isaac.
On Apr 15, 2018 3:21 PM, "Leigh Thelmadatter" <osamadre(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
Not just English Wikipedia. All of the projects
are hostile to
"outsiders"
Those not in English might even be worse for
several reasons
Enviado desde mi LG de Telcel
------ Original message------
From: Robert Fernandez
Date: Sun, Apr 15, 2018 9:17 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List;
Cc:
Subject:Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia
Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies,
organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English
Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia anyone
can edit" anymore. So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and
relevant claim these days.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>