Wikimedia › WikiMedia Foundation

[Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

Classic

List

Threaded

34 messages Options

Anthony Cole

[Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Anthony Cole

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

Link to a screen-shot of the ad: https://instagram.com/p/Bhl01fhhXHT/

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 at 8:53 pm, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

Robert Fernandez

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Anthony Cole

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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Leigh Thelmadatter

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Isaac Olatunde

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Paulo Santos Perneta

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Leigh Thelmadatter

Indeed. It's a very noticeable problem at the Wikipedia in Portuguese.
During a workshop with librarians from the National Library last month, I
was kind of shocked by the huge amount of semi-automated warnings they were
receiving, some of them completely useless, as they were directed to
code-editing rather than the Visual Editor they were using. The librarians
were also puzzled by the apparently pointless aggressivity and hostility
coming from the environment they were trying to join.

On the other hand, content is now much more reliable than it used to be -
there is even a movement at our local wikipedia which is working to
completely eradicate unsourced articles from there. Even more, we kind of
justify that hostility against newbies with the notion that the project is
being actively protected and surveilled against vandalism and fake claims.

So yes, I concur that "fact-checked encyclopedia" is more appropriated
today than "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" - at pt.wiki as well.

Paulo

2018-04-15 15:21 GMT+01:00 Leigh Thelmadatter <[hidden email]>:

Anthony Cole

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Leigh Thelmadatter

To be clear, I’m not arguing we should resurrect “anyone can edit”. I’m
wondering if this new slogan doesn’t run the risk of misleading readers wrt
Wikipedia’s reliability.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 at 10:21 pm, Leigh Thelmadatter <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Vi to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Leigh Thelmadatter

"🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for evil
people 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥" + a winking Baphomet as logo

I find close to pointless derailing any discussion into a incircumstantial
series of tirades.

Vito

2018-04-15 16:21 GMT+02:00 Leigh Thelmadatter <[hidden email]>:

Amir E. Aharoni

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Anthony Cole

I'd just stick to "The Free Encyclopedia". It's a thing we can really agree
upon. (We can, right? Please tell me we can.)

But I am curious - who made this ad?

בתאריך יום א׳, 15 באפר׳ 2018, 15:54, מאת Anthony Cole ‏<[hidden email]
>:

> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

James Salsman-2

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

If we want to do fact checking, which we do whether Congress has
decided publishers are responsible for the content of their
publications or not, the way to automate it is shown at
https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/

Best regards,
Jim

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd just stick to "The Free Encyclopedia". It's a thing we can really agree
> upon. (We can, right? Please tell me we can.)
>
> But I am curious - who made this ad?
>
> בתאריך יום א׳, 15 באפר׳ 2018, 15:54, מאת Anthony Cole ‏<[hidden email]
>>:
>
>> 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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Peter Southwood

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Anthony Cole

That looks somewhat misleading. Who is making the claim?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Anthony Cole
Sent: 15 April 2018 14:56
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

Link to a screen-shot of the ad: https://instagram.com/p/Bhl01fhhXHT/

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 at 8:53 pm, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Peter Southwood

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez

Anyone with internet can edit it, but not necessarily for long if they do it badly, and it is not easy to do it well.
Some of the facts are checked some of the time by some of the people, some of whom are competent to do so. "The fact-checked encyclopedia " is not entirely wrong. Misleading though.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
Sent: 15 April 2018 16:16
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Peter Southwood

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Anthony Cole

Both slogans/claims are not entirely wrong, but also both are highly misleading, and should not be used.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Anthony Cole
Sent: 15 April 2018 16:54
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

To be clear, I’m not arguing we should resurrect “anyone can edit”. I’m
wondering if this new slogan doesn’t run the risk of misleading readers wrt
Wikipedia’s reliability.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 at 10:21 pm, Leigh Thelmadatter <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

--
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Peter Southwood

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni

Looks good to me.
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Amir E. Aharoni
Sent: 15 April 2018 17:35
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

I'd just stick to "The Free Encyclopedia". It's a thing we can really agree
upon. (We can, right? Please tell me we can.)

But I am curious - who made this ad?

בתאריך יום א׳, 15 באפר׳ 2018, 15:54, מאת Anthony Cole ‏<[hidden email]
>:

> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Peter Southwood

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by James Salsman-2

I would like to try that but could not work out what to do from the link
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James Salsman
Sent: 15 April 2018 18:11
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

If we want to do fact checking, which we do whether Congress has
decided publishers are responsible for the content of their
publications or not, the way to automate it is shown at
https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/

Best regards,
Jim

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
<[hidden email]> wrote:

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Jane Darnell

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

I just tried googling Wikipedia and am not seeing that result at all. I see
" *Wikipedia* is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by
volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation."

When I do the same search on mobile, I see the same thing, except this time
it is accompanied by the Dutch version, which I personally find very cute,
and very Dutch. Consider it the "Eeyore version of explaining free
knowlege".

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to try that but could not work out what to do from the link
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of James Salsman
> Sent: 15 April 2018 18:11
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia
>
> If we want to do fact checking, which we do whether Congress has
> decided publishers are responsible for the content of their
> publications or not, the way to automate it is shown at
> https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I'd just stick to "The Free Encyclopedia". It's a thing we can really
> agree
> > upon. (We can, right? Please tell me we can.)
> >
> > But I am curious - who made this ad?
> >
> > בתאריך יום א׳, 15 באפר׳ 2018, 15:54, מאת Anthony Cole ‏<
> [hidden email]
> >>:
> >
> >> 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: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

metasj

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

There will always be a use for a fact-checked online encyclopedia.
https://everything2.com/title/The+Everything+credibility+problem

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I just tried googling Wikipedia and am not seeing that result at all. I see
> " *Wikipedia* is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by
> volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation."
>
> When I do the same search on mobile, I see the same thing, except this time
> it is accompanied by the Dutch version, which I personally find very cute,
> and very Dutch. Consider it the "Eeyore version of explaining free
> knowlege".
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I would like to try that but could not work out what to do from the link
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: 15 April 2018 18:11
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia
> >
> > If we want to do fact checking, which we do whether Congress has
> > decided publishers are responsible for the content of their
> > publications or not, the way to automate it is shown at
> > https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I'd just stick to "The Free Encyclopedia". It's a thing we can really
> > agree
> > > upon. (We can, right? Please tell me we can.)
> > >
> > > But I am curious - who made this ad?
> > >
> > > בתאריך יום א׳, 15 באפר׳ 2018, 15:54, מאת Anthony Cole ‏<
> > [hidden email]
> > >>:
> > >
> > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>

--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

WereSpielChequers-2

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Anthony Cole

Dear Anthony,

I share your concern that "fact checked" is over promising people in a
dangerous and irresponsible way.

"The encyclopaedia anyone can edit" is closer to the truth and the downside
of getting it wrong is much less bad. "My unsourced edit was rejected" or
"my new article on my client was deleted as spam" are easier complaints to
deal with than "your fact checked encyclopaedia that I trusted included
this howler that had sat there for over a year and relying on it has cost
me x". In the last few days I spotted and reverted a blatant vandalism that
had lasted for over two years, and when I'm patrolling for typos I'm not
fact checking plausible but well written content in a subject I know
nothing of. Most of the time I'm checking newish edits for typos I've
patrolled before, so I'm only picking up ancient vandalism when I patrol a
typo, grammatical mistake or risky word I haven't looked at before. Yet it
isn't unusual for me to pick up blatant vandalism that has persisted for
years.

Things are I understand much better on DE where we have flagged revisions,
but on English some edits are not even looked at by a single vandalfighter.
Most of course are looked at and some are looked at by many many eyes. But
the random nature of recent changes patrolling means that some edits are
not patrolled by anyone.

I don't know what proportion of the content is fact checked, but on English
we can't even honestly claim that all newbie and IP edits are currently
checked for vandalism on any meaningful timescale.

At some point I may start an RFC to up our game on EN so that we can at
least promise that "every edit has been screened for blatant vandalism", a
less impressive promise than "the fact-checked encyclopedia" but one that I
think we could and should move to. Draft at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Invisible_flagged_revisions

WereSpielChequers

> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> 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
> > > _______________________________________________
>
> ********************************************
>

Robert Fernandez

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Vi to

> "🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for evil
people 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥" + a winking Baphomet as logo

I think we should change this to our slogan just for April 1.

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for evil
> people 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥" + a winking Baphomet as logo
>
> I find close to pointless derailing any discussion into a incircumstantial
> series of tirades.
>
> Vito
>
> 2018-04-15 16:21 GMT+02:00 Leigh Thelmadatter <[hidden email]>:
>
>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

Anthony Cole

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

I just googled "wikipedia" again and that ad is still coming up. (I’m in
Australia.) When you click the link in the ad it takes you (via 3 or 4
redirects) to wikipedia.org with the word "paid" in the search field. [1]
When you click the Google maps link below the ad text it, strangely, takes
you to the location of a suburban Kmart store. I'm finding it harder to
believe this is sanctioned by WMF. Anyway, I’d appreciate it if someone
from the WMF could chime in on this.

1. https://instagram.com/p/BhpnGuehzhw/

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 9:48 pm, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > "🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for evil
> people 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥" + a winking Baphomet as logo
>
> I think we should change this to our slogan just for April 1.
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > "🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for evil
> > people 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥" + a winking Baphomet as logo
> >
> > I find close to pointless derailing any discussion into a
> incircumstantial
> > series of tirades.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2018-04-15 16:21 GMT+02:00 Leigh Thelmadatter <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>