On 6/18/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, b m shoombooly@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks geni
but this raises more questions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Other_Wikimedia_proj...
that section states that "some projects never accept fair use" that seems contradictory to what geni just said. Is that because there
has
been legal trouble in the past? Or to prevent trouble in the future? It seems odd to me that on the same website/domain there are different
image
use policies.
Different projects have slightly different ideologies with regared to freeness.
As for the low quality content on NL, i agree that EN was conceived a
couple
of years earlier, but the Dutch wiki has over 300k articles, that's a
number
that suggests a large userbase, and high quality. But as i demonstrated,
an
article about the most famous scientist of the last 100 years cites 0 sources. I believe that is wrong. On the Dutch wiki the image use policy
is
enforced with vigor, but the "citing references" issue is hardly
addressed.
I think that is wrong.
Look at any en article below that level of significance
I agree that Jimbo can't interfere with every wiki in every language,
-but-
the Dutch wiki is in the top 10 of wikis in size. And i believe that on other large wikis the same issue applies. The German wiki is second in
size,
and has only 3 references in the article about Einstein. Wouldn't it be reasonable is there was something of a rapporteur to the board for the larger wikis, so that at least the top 10 wikis look
generally
the same?
Possible but there is the question of why any wiki would be crazy enough to want this. Foundation interference in not an unalloyed good
The Dutch wiki gets a fair amount of press coverage, it would be a shame if it were negative press, would't it?
We do not exist to keep the press happy.
As for NPOV, I have seen more examples of the sort on various articles,
even
about animals. Some articles echo a sort of "Greenpeace" sound, whether
it
be deliberate or not. The Dutch wiki also has no template for "this
article
is written like an advertisement". Not because they had no time to make
one,
but because for some reason, they have no desire for it.
So make one.
My question, can, and is it desirable, that Jimbo or some other official intervenes?
Outside some rather extream conditions no.
geni
I agree we don't exist to make the press happy, but if the founder of wikipedia wants references in articles, and the english wikipedia has it, it strikes me as odd that the dutch don't want it...but i get the point, every language makes its own rules, and are allowed to, even if it degrades the quality of the content to a point that people in time might no longer take it seriously. I disagree with this, but apparently it's consensus on the dutch wikipedia to do things this way. People have tried to make templates that tag articles when they have no references or sources or read like an ad, but they were all deleted by the admins. I doubt there is a point in me making new ones which then get deleted as well. The admins on the Dutch wiki do not want it, and apparently it therefor will not happen. This is why i emailed to this list int he first place, to find out IF there is a rewuirement within the foundation to encourage finding sources and references, and if there is a rule about images that applies to all wikis. I find it odd that the dutch wikipedia is bound by Florida law, but in its own policy thinks it is bound by Dutch copyright law, even when it isn't! No-one has yet explained to me why that is, and no-one has said so far whether or nbot wikimedia is trying to get fair use permission from large corporations to prevent legal trouble int he future. English articles of less significance might be less well sources, but at least most of them have some sources, the dutch almost never use sources. This has nothing to do with the age of the wiki, but all with the attitude of the leadership and writing staff. Surely, when writing about Einstein one can include references, hell, use the ones on the English wiki, a source is a source no matter the language. All i'm saying is, that there seems to be no desire to encourage sourcing, and that it is likely that people over there are purposely thwarting attempts to make it more like the EN example, for reasons of their own that boggle my mind. Furthermore i read on some userpages that people feel like "intellectuals" are being chased away in favor of the "everyone should contribute" attitude. Of course everyone should be able to contribute, but this way it is an unbalanced culture of quantity over quality. I could write dozens of articles filled with factual inaccuracies or lies without having to quote any sources. And unless someone saw it and was willing to fix it, it would stay that way. People have actually tried this and made a string of articles about a sport that didn't exist, hundreds of pages of bull, and it took a year to finally figure it out, and that only because a dedicated individual pieced it all together. The persons who pulled this prank admitted it was to test the error-finding capability of wikipedia. This was rather innocent, but it could happen with more serious topics.
Maybe it's just me, but i don't think this is a good situation.