...and you seem to think one can live by an encyclopedia. I can assure you,
Wikipedia is a lot of things, but it is not a way of life. To answer your
fear which I read between the lines of what you are saying, in order to
create a Wikipedia project you need a basic list of 10,000 articles. The
list as I am sure you are aware, is a pretty boring and strangely ordered
grouping of fairly dry, non-political subjects. I believe there are very
few articles on there that are worth firebombing someone over. [[Michael
Jackson]] is on the list, among other notable Americans. Granted, you could
get past the 10,000 article startup requirement somehow and then start
creating lots of POV articles, but once you do this you will soon be
discovered. There is just no way to hide it.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Lilburne
<lilburne(a)tygers-of-wrath.net>
wrote:
On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it
when
> someone tries to take over a project, and
that is the reason we
shouldn't
> try to anticipate that with convoluted
strategies. "Assume Good Faith"
> will
> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which is
why
> governments that intend to do such things
choose nowadays to just block
> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that of
the
Kazakh
people.
Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by what it
showed them in their feeds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
(advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of people.
You only need a small push in one direction or another to influence a
large
population. Doesn't matter if the push is to
buy a particular soap, vote
one way or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2450825/big-data-business-intelligence/…
Do it to a naively trusted source and you have a triple word score
jackpot^H^H^Hboot.
I thought Epstein's and Robertson's paper, "The search engine manipulation
effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections", was
very interesting as well:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-201…
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512.abstract
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well the chances of me being firebombed while on
vacation in the states
are
probably higher than me being firebombed for
editing Wikipedia, but that
still doesn't mean we need to worry about changing the wiki model. I
guess
I have lost the thread of your point entirely
now.
To be honest, I don't think you had ever gotten hold of it in the first
place. To me, you seem to live in a very sheltered and naive world.
If we have reports of Wikipedians being tortured in Azerbaijan (and there
seems to have been some truth to these reports, as the sysop named in them
was globally blocked by the WMF a short while later[1]), you should be able
to understand that it is not quite as easy to live the wiki way there as it
is in your country, and that some of the assumptions you have formed based
on your own experiences of the wiki model may not hold in other locales.
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Irada&diff=12421543&a…
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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>