I still don't think calling us 'unreliable' is actionable straightout. Hell,
we aren't reliable even by our own standards.
- Chris
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Esteffect (Wikipedia e-mail) <
esteffect(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
I think that the way the image is being used, however,
is clearly to state,
"it's unreliable". It can probably be actioned quite easily, as Facebook
pages are supposed to be ran by key representatives of the brand they
represent. Unless the Foundation are running it, it would not be hard to
report.
The original page, with its 50,000 or so "fans" still seems a bit suspect
in
terms of its disappearance, and was a far better representative of the
project (actual Wikipedia logo, and so forth).
On 04/03/2009, Ronald Chmara <ron(a)opus1.com> wrote:
On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Chris Down wrote:
At least in my opinion, this is hardly
actionable. Besides, whoever
made
that image doesn't understand the concept of verifiability.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Esteffect (Wikipedia e-mail) <
esteffect(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>
http://profile.ak.facebook.com/object3/1533/67/l44712023245_41.jpg
> (A motivational image stating "Wikipedia: The truth is now
> editable").
"Truth" is a concept often brokered in by authoritarians, where there
are absolute, unchanging, statements of "fact", regardless of
science, of future results, of more data, (etc.)
"Truth" has always been editable, depending on who has authority.
We're Wikipedia. We don't deal with a "Truth", we deal with many
verifiable believers in many verifiable "truths".
-Bop
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l