Nupedia had severely defective strategy and tactics. It was also an encyclopedia, not a news project. So it has pretty much zero bearing on any aspect of the current situation.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Vetting before publication proved a failure. It is why we have Wikipedia and not Nupedia. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 April 2017 at 14:44, pi zero wn.pi.zero@gmail.com wrote:
English Wikinews took serious measures for reliability back in 2009. For our pains, we've received mostly grief from the Foundation, and from a vocal segment of the Wikipedian community. If they consulted, before
this
expertise-lending, with the sister project that specializes in vetting-before-publishing (one of the defining characteristics of news), I'm not aware of it. In fairness, Wikipedia might plausibly claim to
have
some expertise in dealing with the consequences of /not/ vetting before publication, and those consequences are legitimately of interest (but I agree the passage abound lending expertise cries for explanation; there's irony in talking about propaganda in a piece on the wikimedia blog, which tbh I consider a Foundation propaganda outlet).
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
On a related note, the Foundation Blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/04/07/misinfocon-fake-news/ proudly announces that "the Wikimedia Foundation joined a handful of media organization at the MIT Media Lab to lend their expertise at
MisInfoCon".
That's certainly good to hear, but a little short on details In the interests, of transparency, please could someone post a pointer to a
fuller
description of the expertise that the Foundation has in this area (as opposed to the community of volunteers), and a pointer to the
submissions,
papers or other contributions that those experts made at the meeting?
"Rogol"
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:31 PM, wiki.pine wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
FYI: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/04/04/new-nonprofit- consortium-will-focus-countering-fake-news-building-trust-media/ Involved parties include some names that will be familiar to
Wikimedians
and WMFers: "AppNexus, Betaworks, Craig Newmark Philanthropic Fund, Democracy Fund, Ford Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation,
Mozilla, and the Tow Foundation." Pine _______________________________________________ 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
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