Re: [silk] Wikipedia on the decline
On 24-Nov-09 2:59 PM, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: Just came across this article [1] which talks about the accelerating decline in the number of contributors. Whats interesting is the reason, that it is turning out to be a hostile environment due to the amount of debate required. Quite depressing, for me at least. Kiran [1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html A largely similar article in Technology Review that is notable chiefly for the (depressing) fact that not much has changed. :( Udhay http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ The Decline of Wikipedia By Tom Simonite on October 22, 2013 Wikipedia is the largest free source of information in the world. The sixth most widely used website in the world is not run anything like the others in the top 10. It is not operated by a sophisticated corporation but by a leaderless collection of volunteers who generally work under pseudonyms and habitually bicker with each other. It rarely tries new things in the hope of luring visitors; in fact, it has changed little in a decade. And yet every month 10 billion pages are viewed on the English version of Wikipedia alone. When a major news event takes place, such as the Boston Marathon bombings, complex, widely sourced entries spring up within hours and evolve by the minute. Because there is no other free information source like it, many online services rely on Wikipedia. Look something up on Google or ask Siri a question on your iPhone, and you’ll often get back tidbits of information pulled from the encyclopedia and delivered as straight-up facts. Yet Wikipedia and its stated ambition to “compile the sum of all human knowledge” are in trouble. The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia—and must defend it against vandalism, hoaxes, and manipulation—has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking. Those participants left seem incapable of fixing the flaws that keep Wikipedia from becoming a high-quality encyclopedia by any standard, including the project’s own. Among the significant problems that aren’t getting resolved is the site’s skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy. Authoritative entries remain elusive. Of the 1,000 articles that the project’s own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-ranking quality scores. The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage. When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today. In response, the Wikimedia Foundation, the 187-person nonprofit that pays for the legal and technical infrastructure supporting Wikipedia, is staging a kind of rescue mission. The foundation can’t order the volunteer community to change the way it operates. But by tweaking Wikipedia’s website and software, it hopes to steer the encyclopedia onto a more sustainable path. The foundation’s campaign will bring the first major changes in years to a site that is a time capsule from the Web’s earlier, clunkier days, far removed from the easy-to-use social and commercial sites that dominate today. “Everything that Wikipedia is was utterly appropriate in 2001 and it’s become increasingly out of date since,” says Sue Gardner, executive director of the foundation, which is housed on two drab floors of a downtown San Francisco building with a faulty elevator. “This is very much our attempt to get caught up.” She and Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, say the project needs to attract a new crowd to make progress. “The biggest issue is editor diversity,” says Wales. He hopes to “grow the number of editors in topics that need work.” Whether that can happen depends on whether enough people still believe in the notion of online collaboration for the greater good—the ideal that propelled Wikipedia in the beginning. But the attempt is crucial; Wikipedia matters to many more people than its editors and students who didn’t make time to read their assigned books. More of us than ever use the information found there, both directly and via other services. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has either killed off the alternatives or pushed them down the Google search results. In 2009 Microsoft closed Encarta, which was based on content from several storied encyclopedias. Encyclopaedia Britannica, which charges $70 a year for online access to its 120,000 articles, offers just a handful of free entries plastered with banner and pop-up ads.
Re: [silk] Wikipedia on the decline
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:59:27PM +0530, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: Just came across this article [1] which talks about the accelerating decline in the number of contributors. Whats interesting is the reason, that it is turning out to be a hostile environment due to the amount of debate required. Quite depressing, for me at least. Completely unsurprising, for me at least. It's remarkable how long they lasted as is. So is Wales just putting up a brave front? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6660646/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Wales-denies-site-is-losing-thousands-of-volunteer-editors.html -- roswitha.tumblr.com
Re: [silk] Wikipedia on the decline
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 05:25:09PM +0530, Supriya Nair wrote: So is Wales just putting up a brave front? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6660646/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Wales-denies-site-is-losing-thousands-of-volunteer-editors.html It doesn't matter what he says, it matters what the admins and the authors do. This is either attempted perception management or lack of clue, the result is the same. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
[silk] Wikipedia on the decline
Just came across this article [1] which talks about the accelerating decline in the number of contributors. Whats interesting is the reason, that it is turning out to be a hostile environment due to the amount of debate required. Quite depressing, for me at least. Kiran [1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia AgeBy JULIA ANGWIN and GEOFFREY A. FOWLER Wikipedia.org is the fifth-most-popular Web site in the world, with roughly 325 million monthly visitors. But unprecedented numbers of the millions of online volunteers who write, edit and police it are quitting. That could have significant implications for the brand of democratization that Wikipedia helped to unleash over the Internet -- the empowerment of the amateur. Volunteers have been departing the project that bills itself as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit faster than new ones have been joining, and the net losses have accelerated over the past year. In the first three months of 2009, the English-language Wikipedia suffered a net loss of more than 49,000 editors, compared to a net loss of 4,900 during the same period a year earlier, according to Spanish researcher Felipe Ortega, who analyzed Wikipedia's data on the editing histories of its more than three million active contributors in 10 languages. Eight years after Wikipedia began with a goal to provide everyone in the world free access to the sum of all human knowledge, the declines in participation have raised questions about the encyclopedia's ability to continue expanding its breadth and improving its accuracy. Errors and deliberate insertions of false information by vandals have undermined its reliability. Executives at the Wikimedia Foundation, which finances and oversees the nonprofit venture, acknowledge the declines, but believe they can continue to build a useful encyclopedia with a smaller pool of contributors. We need sufficient people to do the work that needs to be done, says Sue Gardner, executive director of the foundation. But the purpose of the project is not participation. Indeed, Wikipedia remains enormously popular among users, with the number of Web visitors growing 20% in the 12 months ending in September, according to comScore Media Metrix. Wikipedia contributors have been debating widely what is behind the declines in volunteers. One factor is that many topics already have been written about. Another is the plethora of rules Wikipedia has adopted to bring order to its unruly universe -- particularly to reduce infighting among contributors about write-ups of controversial subjects and polarizing figures. Wikipedia is becoming a more hostile environment, contends Mr. Ortega, a project manager at Libresoft, a research group at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid. Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again. Wikipedia's struggles raise questions about the evolution of crowdsourcing, one of the Internet era's most cherished principles. Crowdsourcing posits that there is wisdom in aggregating independent contributions from multitudes of Web users. It has been promoted as a new and better way for large numbers of individuals to collaborate on tasks, without the rules and hierarchies of traditional organizations. But as it matures, Wikipedia, one of the world's largest crowdsourcing initiatives, is becoming less freewheeling and more like the organizations it set out to replace. Today, its rules are spelled out across hundreds of Web pages. Increasingly, newcomers who try to edit are informed that they have unwittingly broken a rule -- and find their edits deleted, according to a study by researchers at Xerox Corp. People generally have this idea that the wisdom of crowds is a pixie dust that you sprinkle on a system and magical things happen, says Aniket Kittur, an assistant professor of human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University who has studied Wikipedia and other large online community projects. Yet the more people you throw at a problem, the more difficulty you are going to have with coordinating those people. It's too many cooks in the kitchen. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who is chairman emeritus of the foundation, acknowledges participation has been declining. But he says it still isn't clear to him what the right number of volunteer Wikipedians should be. If people think Wikipedia is done, he says, meaning that with three million articles it is hard to find new things to write about, that's substantial. But if the community has become more hostile to newbies, that's a correctable problem. Mr. Wales says his top priority is to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia's articles. He's pushing a new feature that would require top editors to approve all edits before they are displayed on the site. The idea is to prevent the kind of vandalism that in January declared Sen. Edward Kennedy's death months before his actual
Re: [silk] Wikipedia on the decline
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kiran K Karthikeyan kiran.karthike...@gmail.com wrote: Just came across this article [1] which talks about the accelerating decline in the number of contributors. Whats interesting is the reason, that it is turning out to be a hostile environment due to the amount of debate required. Quite depressing, for me at least. I'm kind of ambivalent about wikipedia itself, and the net editor loss is making things worse. Some background in the discussion that starts at [1]. One major exacerbating factor is that google, among others, weights wikipedia results so heavily, which leads to situations where gaming wikipedia's system can yield fantastic RoI in many different dimensions. Evidence for this abounds, not offering more flamebait right now. :) Udhay [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist@lists.hserus.net/msg08447.html -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Wikipedia on the decline
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:59:27PM +0530, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: Just came across this article [1] which talks about the accelerating decline Not a new phenomenon. The German Wikipedia actually commited a PR seppuku in the last couple months. I hope the fork http://scytale.name/blog/2009/11/announcing-levitation will happen soon. in the number of contributors. Whats interesting is the reason, that it is turning out to be a hostile environment due to the amount of debate required. Quite depressing, for me at least. Completely unsurprising, for me at least. It's remarkable how long they lasted as is. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 1:08 pm, Srini Ramakrishnan wrote: By carrying that statement to its logical end, I'd say Hindus are not alone - the Muslims fear being dubbed hardcore radicals if they wear traditional Islamic attire, and the Christians fear being termed as proselytizing missionaries when they wear the cross and carry a Bible. This in fact is an interesting observation although I disagree with the detail. A far larger percentage of Hindus and Christians in the West are likely to behave secular and deny religious belief than Muslims. In India criticizing a Muslim or criticizing a proselytizing missionary carries more negative consequences than criticizing Hindu behavior. Perhaps I am taking the analogy too far (but maybe I am not) but in India the criticism faced by a Hindu is practically the same whether he kills a Muslim or a Christian, or whether he merely criticizes them. Either way he is dubbed a murderer just as the steps I have seen in this thread that escalate group blame from editing an encyclopedia to being goose stepping murderers. Easier to set up a murder if the consequences are the same. With law enforcement and judicial system being what it is the real murderer will never be booked, and a whole group will get branded and will live with the brand. The same paradigm holds true for Islamist terrorism. Tightening law enforcement and the judicial system are only half the answer. The other half lies in consciously accepting that group guilt and group responsibility for crimes or perceived crimes are both legally and morally wrong and to move towards identification of individuals rather than groups. This acceptance does not exist at the highest levels in India and I can frequently pick up media examples in which a group is held guilty, or group punishment inflicted on a group is overlooked as a genuine expression of grievance. Both are wrong. Judging by the depth of penetration of these traits among Indians I can see that upholding of the constitution has got to be an onerous, uphill task. shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 1:10 pm, Ramakrishnan Sundaram wrote: I'm an atheist, sometimes militantly so, and I have several friends who are openly religiously Hindu. No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that they are right-wing Hindus. Your friends are lucky, because they would be dubbed murderers the minute they get branded as right wing. I have not been so lucky and have often been branded a right wing RSS supporter, which makes me a murderer of Christians. When we speak of personal experiences, yours is different from mine. shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
Perhaps I am taking the analogy too far (but maybe I am not) but in India the criticism faced by a Hindu is practically the same whether he kills a Collective guilt? Well, I don't know. Nothing short of public apathy - and a latent hatred of muslims - would have made conditions ripe for someone like Modi. I have a friend who is a roman catholic from the konkan coast (the sort who were hindus a few centuries ago till converted by the Portuguese missionaries) - stayed at Ahmedabad for about a year in the late 90s. He tried very hard to rent an apartment in predominantly hindu localities - which just happened to be closer to where his office was. No dice. So, told the realtor to go back to the nicer apartments and call him Mohan Prabhu (the hindu name he has, traditionally, along with his Christian name .. Konkani Christians from those clans - Miranda, Remedios etc - generally do) and he found zero trouble getting space from the same landlords who insisted they were full up, or flat out refused to rent to a guy with a muslim sounding name
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Dec 10, 2007 12:28 PM, shiv sastry wrote: A far larger percentage of Hindus and Christians in the West are likely to behave secular and deny religious belief than Muslims. Where do you get such information? i know very many expatriate / people-of- indian origin muslims / hindus who behave secular, and act in ways not associated with the cliches you are suggesting I also know many such people who are religious and traditional despite having lived their lives away from india
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 3:06 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Nothing short of public apathy - and a latent hatred of muslims - would have made conditions ripe for someone like Modi. It is public ignorance rather than public apathy Do you know that it is easily possible to justify the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat if you just get your arguments right? I believe this is exactly what India is setting itself up for by failing to understand that group punishment by one entity cannot be criticized while condoning and overlooking group punishment by another entity. Unfortunately, politics favors criticism of the right wing as a group rather than cracking down on the idea group punishment and group guilt. Every act of Islamist terrorism is openly touted as punishment of a group for a previous wrong on Muslims as a group. Political parties and commentators frequently overlook this fact for their own ends, and that actually opens the door wider for group punishment of Muslims by Hindu groups. Check the photo I took of a poster in Bangalore that clearly links group punishment in the form of bomb blasts to persecution of Muslims http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cybersurg/brf/muslim-riot-blast.jpg All it takes is a Modi to call for retaliation, justifying the random killing of Muslims as retaliation for random bomb blasts (or some other trigger). Tit for tat. In India we don't seem to recognize that group blame and group guilt are concepts that are not constitutionally valid and need to be condemned whoever does them. But we have not even reached a stage of being able to recognize when an entire group is being blamed or implicated. Innocent citizens of Mumbai were punished in retaliation for the demolition of the Babri Masjid in a tit for tat retribution. A thousand Innocent Muslims were murdered in Gujarat in an ostensibly tit for tat retribution for the burning of Hindu pilgrims in a railway coach. If the the entire right wing are blamed for the latter, how is it wrong for the right wing to blame all Muslims for the former? Tit for tat group blame and group punishment after all. If you can blame the entire right wing, you need to blame all Muslims, in order to be fair. When will educated Indians start seeing the contraditions that we live with? Like I said, it is ignorance. Not apathy. shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Dec 10, 2007 4:09 PM, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the the entire right wing are blamed for the latter, how is it wrong for the right wing to blame all Muslims for the former? Tit for tat group blame and group punishment after all. If you can blame the entire right wing, you need to blame all Muslims, in order to be fair. Not really. By that line of reasoning, all right wing Muslims would need to blamed -- the ones who explicitly or implicitly support terrorism -- not all Muslims. Not that I am supporting the concept of group blame, but this particular argument sounds like a strawman to me. Both right wing Hindus and Muslims are being blamed here. I don't really see a case for religion-based discrimination. Venky.
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 3:32 pm, ashok _ wrote: A far larger percentage of Hindus and Christians in the West are likely to behave secular and deny religious belief than Muslims. Where do you get such information? i know very many expatriate / people-of- indian origin muslims / hindus who behave secular, and act in ways not associated with the cliches you are suggesting I also know many such people who are religious and traditional despite having lived their lives away from india... I am not talking of private behavior. In public count the percentage of Hindu women wearing bindis or mangalsutras versus Muslim women wearing hijabs in say the UK. shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
I am not talking of private behavior. In public count the percentage of Hindu women wearing bindis or mangalsutras versus Muslim women wearing hijabs in say the UK. Er. Count the number of hindu women wearing a madisar 9 yard saree v/s the hejab.
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Dec 10, 2007 2:55 PM, shiv sastry wrote: I am not talking of private behavior. In public count the percentage of Hindu women wearing bindis or mangalsutras versus Muslim women wearing hijabs in say the UK. how would such a count be attempted... ? You speak as if you already conducted such a count
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 6:44 pm, ashok _ wrote: how would such a count be attempted... ? You speak as if you already conducted such a count er yes shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 5:01 pm, Venky TV wrote: Not really. By that line of reasoning, all right wing Muslims would need to blamed -- the ones who explicitly or implicitly support terrorism -- not all Muslims. Bingo!. If we split hairs this is spot on. So when did you last hear anyone blaming any Muslims, right wing or any wing for any bomb blasts? I only hear that terrorists have no religion but, on the other hand, Muslims get killed by right wing Hindus. Lots of straw men about it seems. shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Dec 10, 2007 6:55 PM, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So when did you last hear anyone blaming any Muslims, right wing or any wing for any bomb blasts? I only hear that terrorists have no religion but, on the other hand, Muslims get killed by right wing Hindus. I *have* encountered the phrase terrorists have no religion but definitely not as often as the term Islamic fundamentalists or Muslim extremists. Most bomb blast reports in India routinely blame Muslim militants anyway[1][2]. Venky. [1] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Serial_blasts_claim_12_lives_in_Uttar_Pradesh/articleshow/2564801.cms [2] http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=12840
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Dec 10, 2007 4:21 PM, shiv sastry wrote: er yes shiv maybe you counted the same women twice or thrice over... since its hard to differentiate at a glance between two women wearing a hijab :)
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On 10-Dec-07, at 7:22 PM, ashok _ wrote: On Dec 10, 2007 4:21 PM, shiv sastry wrote: er yes shiv maybe you counted the same women twice or thrice over... since its hard to differentiate at a glance between two women wearing a hijab :) Or counted Indian Christian women as Hindus without bindis... since it's hard to tell them apart by face alone. :)
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 7:20 pm, Venky TV wrote: I *have* encountered the phrase terrorists have no religion but definitely not as often as the term Islamic fundamentalists or Muslim extremists. Most bomb blast reports in India routinely blame Muslim militants anyway[1][2]. Venky. [1] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Serial_blasts_claim_12_lives_in_Uttar_P radesh/articleshow/2564801.cms [2] http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=12840 Hehehe - I have a readymade (Here's one that I put in the oven earlier) answer for that one. (You would have heard that one too). But I think I'll stop. Thanks for the points made. i don't want to push the envelope any further. shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 7:52 pm, Kiran Jonnalagadda wrote: Or counted Indian Christian women as Hindus without bindis... since it's hard to tell them apart by face alone. Indian Christians are few and far between but but wearing a bindi is not a problem for Indian Christian women. In fact Indian Muslim girls wear bindis too on occasion. But whether they are Hindu, Christian or Muslim, the degree of choice and freedom available to wear something or the other is variable. A survey of that variability would probably throw up some interesting results. but hey it doesn't pay to be a sociologist in India. Either you're a doctor. Or you're an Engineer. Nothing else exists and a Freudian indicator of how Indians see occupation and status was seen once again with Medical students holding brooms in protest. That was presumably meant to show how high up they are in the Indian pecking order and how low down a mere broom wielder is. Caste doesn't leave us that easily, though we like to imagine that it does. shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On 11-Dec-07, at 9:49 AM, shiv sastry wrote: A survey of that variability would probably throw up some interesting results. but hey it doesn't pay to be a sociologist in India. So you're saying that you're too cheap to get a real survey done, but expect to be taken seriously on facts you admit to making up yourself. FWIW, there are sociologists in India. Some are on this list.
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Saturday 08 Dec 2007 6:00 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Yeah - so there's a bunch of bjp / rss right wing kooks editing every article they can find on the Indian freedom struggle and similar topics I have developed a theory, and gamed it to boot, to demonstrate that any owning up or identification with a Hindu identity gets dubbed as Rightwing Hindu extremism. Merely identifying onself as belonging to any other faith does not lead to such an automatic classification. There is, therefore a tendency among many Hindus to play down their Hindu identity in public and in mixed cultural company, while they remain as Hindu as can be in private. Owning up to being Hindu is asking to be identified as right wing shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Dec 9, 2007 8:12 AM, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owning up to being Hindu is asking to be identified as right wing No, Shiv. Going to a temple, performing a pooja, celebrating diwali with family and friends are all perfectly fine non-right wing ways of practicing Hinduism. It is when one gooseteps in khakhi shorts down the road, when one claims that the Hindu civilization is 10,000 years old, when one thumps on Herr Hegdewar's books and goes around burning Christian families, etc., one gets identified as right wing. There are millions of people who identify themselves as Hindus that do not do any of the things I just mentioned that identify them as right wing. Thaths -- Bart: I want to be emancipated. Homer: Emancipated?! Don't you like being a dude? -- Homer J. Simpson Sudhakar ChandraSlacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Sunday 09 Dec 2007 10:06 pm, Thaths wrote: It is when one gooseteps in khakhi shorts down the road, when one claims that the Hindu civilization is 10,000 years old, when one thumps on Herr Hegdewar's books and goes around burning Christian families, etc., one gets identified as right wing. There are millions of people who identify themselves as Hindus that do not do any of the things I just mentioned that identify them as right wing. Thaths group guilt and group responsibility get smeared around so easily. My statement was in response to the identification of BJP/RSS right wing kooks editing Wikipedia. Could I safely assume that those BJP/RSS right wing kooks who are editing wikipedia are all fall into the category of people who claims that the Hindu civilization is 10,000 years old, when one thumps on Herr Hegdewar's books and goes around burning Christian families, etc., ? shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Dec 9, 2007 4:51 PM, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 09 Dec 2007 10:06 pm, Thaths wrote: It is when one gooseteps in khakhi shorts down the road, when one claims that the Hindu civilization is 10,000 years old, when one thumps on Herr Hegdewar's books and goes around burning Christian families, etc., one gets identified as right wing. There are millions of people who identify themselves as Hindus that do not do any of the things I just mentioned that identify them as right wing. Thaths group guilt and group responsibility get smeared around so easily. My statement was in response to the identification of BJP/RSS right wing kooks editing Wikipedia. Could I safely assume that those BJP/RSS right wing kooks who are editing wikipedia are all fall into the category of people who claims that the Hindu civilization is 10,000 years old, when one thumps on Herr Hegdewar's books and goes around burning Christian families, etc., ? Interesting you should opt out of re-using the gooseteps (sic) in khaki shorts bit. I suspect a vaster majority of right wing kooks do that than any of the other example characteristics I stated. Thaths -- Bart: I want to be emancipated. Homer: Emancipated?! Don't you like being a dude? -- Homer J. Simpson Sudhakar ChandraSlacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 6:51 am, Thaths wrote: Interesting you should opt out of re-using the gooseteps (sic) in khaki shorts bit. I suspect a vaster majority of right wing kooks do that than any of the other example characteristics I stated. But Thaths that is not a reply to my question. Sidestepping, (or even goose stepping) does not alter the fact that group smearing or profiling is being done. One of the problems I note with Indian, particularly Hindu society is this characteristic. But when you combine group smearing and profiling by Hindus with a similar action by Muslims we get a deadly cocktail. Each side sees justice in the act of smearing an entire group and fails to recognise that they are doing the very typecasting that they are accusing the other side of doing. Blaming an entire group and banding a whole group together under one odious banner is fundamentally tribal law, which exists unofficially (but based on literature) among Hindus and as coded law among Muslims. This is less of a problem in the West because of the powerful implementation of laws and the separation of individual from group. But it is rampant in India and extends to the government, quite apart fro the attitudes being commonplace among the citizenry. shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
shiv sastry wrote: One of the problems I note with Indian, particularly Hindu society is this Not really. It is a description of a subset of Indian editors active on Wikipedia. Editing characterized by 1. Aggressive nationalism (to the point of claiming that incidents like the Satichaura Ghat massacre didn't occur at all - where a bunch of sepoys let the lucknow garrison + their families under General Wheeler get into boats, and then opened fire, killing several men, women and children ...). Oh, and an aggressive campaign to call a page First War of Indian Independence rather than Indian Rebellion of 1857 or Sepoy Mutiny 2. A few fun Wikipedia tricks - tagteam editing to get around 3RR, wikilawyering etc, followed by creating sockpuppet editors. srs
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
OK. The point I would like to make is that the group described below were characterized as BJP/RSS right wing kooks On Monday 10 Dec 2007 7:45 am, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Editing characterized by 1. Aggressive nationalism (to the point of claiming that incidents like the Satichaura Ghat massacre didn't occur at all - where a bunch of sepoys let the lucknow garrison + their families under General Wheeler get into boats, and then opened fire, killing several men, women and children ...). Oh, and an aggressive campaign to call a page First War of Indian Independence rather than Indian Rebellion of 1857 or Sepoy Mutiny 2. A few fun Wikipedia tricks - tagteam editing to get around 3RR, wikilawyering etc, followed by creating sockpuppet editors. Upon asking about that we have information that the term right wing is applied to the following: It is when one gooseteps in khakhi shorts down the road, when one claims that the Hindu civilization is 10,000 years old, when one thumps on Herr Hegdewar's books and goes around burning Christian families, etc. So the Wikipedia editors that you describe are also Goose stepping murderers of Christians based on the information I read. I am saying that this is what is described as profiling and a gradual creeping extension of a group's odious characteristics based on the one common denominator of mutual dislike of that group by a number of people who add more and more new and offensive characteristics to a group. I think the importance of this essentially tribal attitude is underestimated. It is group profiling of Muslims that leads to the death of innocent Muslims in riots. In the last three weeks or so we have seen group punishment of lawyers by an Islamist groups who conducted bomb blasts in the courts of Lucknow and Varanasi. I think group profiling is a slippery slope that every individual who values individual rights must be careful not to propagate and perpetuate. We then become guilty of the very characteristic that we accuse others of displaying. There was Bible lesson that used to be read out in school. I think it was the Sermon on the Mount that basically stated Don't look for the mote in another's eye when you have a beam in your own eye If we indulge in group profiling, we cannot expect that the favor will not be ruturned to us. shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
If we indulge in group profiling, we cannot expect that the favor will not be ruturned to us. I am an equal opportunity profiler. I think the right wingers on both sides of the spectrum - modi and the brownshorts on one side and the mad mullahs on the other - are reprehensible. So, where does that leave me?
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 9:08 am, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: So, where does that leave me? Can't say about you personally, but it is possible that you might fall into what I wrote in the first message. I repeat: There is, therefore a tendency among many Hindus to play down their Hindu identity in public and in mixed cultural company, while they remain as Hindu as can be in private. Owning up to being Hindu is asking to be identified as right wing shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
There is, therefore a tendency among many Hindus to play down their Hindu identity in public and in mixed cultural company, while they remain as Hindu as can be in private. Owning up to being Hindu is asking to be identified as right wing I am not a practicing hindu, in private or in public. And I am quite open about calling certain hindu godmen (including one silk dressed hippie with a few rape cases against him, a US embassy advisory that doesn't quite name him, etc etc) frauds. Which doesn't particularly endear me to some of my relatives who have huge portraits of the guy that they worship. suresh
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
Suresh Ramasubramanian said the following on 10/12/2007 07:57: And I am quite open about calling certain hindu godmen (including one silk dressed hippie with a few rape cases against him, Suresh: Remember, we are supposed to respect all religious and sexual preferences. This particular guy has just combined both and also interpreted Shaivism literally. And you have to admit that watching supposedly mature politicians get all ecstatic about being touched by a hand that was in all probability in his crotch a minute earlier, is ... amusing. Regards, Ram
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Monday 10 Dec 2007 9:27 am, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: I am not a practicing hindu, in private or in public. And I am quite open about calling certain hindu godmen (including one silk dressed hippie with a few rape cases against him, a US embassy advisory that doesn't quite name him, etc etc) frauds. Which doesn't particularly endear me to some of my relatives who have huge portraits of the guy that they worship. Sai Baba in other words. The silk draped hippie with rape cases against him who produces Rolex watches out of thin air. Well anyway you don't own up to being Hindu, but you probably are not a practising Christian or Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Jain or Sikh. You may be atheist or agnostic. In fact many educated Hindus chose this route to avoid being asked to answer uncomfortable questions about Hinduism. Wearing Hindu symbols like a large tilak on one's forehead or admitting to openly practicing Hindu ritual is quite often an invitation to being clubbed with Right wing Hindus. And that description Right Wing Hindu has been defined in the last few posts of this thread. Nobody wants that tag, so better to opt out. shiv
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
Remember, we are supposed to respect all religious and sexual preferences. This particular guy has just combined both and also interpreted Shaivism literally. And you have to admit that watching supposedly mature politicians get all ecstatic about being touched by a hand that was in all probability in his crotch a minute earlier, is ... amusing. If it was just his, instead of assorted little boys .. I would be fine. Let him that hasn't had his hand there sometime cast the first stone :)
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On 10-Dec-07, at 9:43 AM, shiv sastry wrote: In fact many educated Hindus chose this route to avoid being asked to answer uncomfortable questions about Hinduism. Wearing Hindu symbols like a large tilak on one's forehead or admitting to openly practicing Hindu ritual is quite often an invitation to being clubbed with Right wing Hindus. And that description Right Wing Hindu has been defined in the last few posts of this thread. Shiv, I'd like to see your references, please. Where did you get this fact from?
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Dec 10, 2007 9:43 AM, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] In fact many educated Hindus chose this route to avoid being asked to answer uncomfortable questions about Hinduism. Wearing Hindu symbols like a large tilak on one's forehead or admitting to openly practicing Hindu ritual is quite often an invitation to being clubbed with Right wing Hindus. And that description Right Wing Hindu has been defined in the last few posts of this thread. By carrying that statement to its logical end, I'd say Hindus are not alone - the Muslims fear being dubbed hardcore radicals if they wear traditional Islamic attire, and the Christians fear being termed as proselytizing missionaries when they wear the cross and carry a Bible. IMO, there are blander followers of every religion, and it isn't for fear of retribution, but because religion and it's attendant symbols and rituals aren't as strong an anchor in people's lives as they used to be. For much the same reason I am not the card carrying, GNU-tshirt-wearing Linux hippie I used to be. Cheeni
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
shiv sastry said the following on 10/12/2007 08:13: In fact many educated Hindus chose this route to avoid being asked to answer uncomfortable questions about Hinduism. Wearing Hindu symbols like a large tilak on one's forehead or admitting to openly practicing Hindu ritual is quite often an invitation to being clubbed with Right wing Hindus. Shiv: All generalisations are wrong, including this one. I'm an atheist, sometimes militantly so, and I have several friends who are openly religiously Hindu. No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that they are right-wing Hindus. On the other hand, I know a few right-wing Hindus who, as far as I know, do not practice Hindu rituals. In fact, they are practically atheists. Their right-wing Hinduism is more driven by a hatred of Muslims than by any religious belief. They are also the ones who tend to go on and on about how ancient Hinduism had the greatest science which was stolen by Max Muller and so on. Like flying machines which flew either on mercury or on mulligatawny soup... But I do not know any educated (or otherwise) Hindus who choose to appear atheists or agnosts to avoid being taken for right-wing loons. Right-wing Hinduism is vote-bank politics. It is easy to build up a sense of discrimination based on religion, because people who believe in one illogical thing will often believe in another. It is easy to blame a minority for all your shortcomings. It's far more difficult to build a culture of personal responsibility - the very opposite of a religious society. Ram
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
Udhay Shankar N wrote: Wikipedia, in its way, is of great benefit to the web community, he says. But I've also been greatly dismayed that Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities Yeah - so there's a bunch of bjp / rss right wing kooks editing every article they can find on the Indian freedom struggle and similar topics None of them are admins, but most of them are really good at wikilawyering.
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
Udhay Shankar N wrote: [ on 05:58 PM 12/4/2007 ] Dirty Laundry coming out (via Eugen) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ And some more follow up here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/ This appears to be playing out in classic abuse-of-power style. Here's the bit that is especially thought-provoking: If you ask Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne what's going on, they'll tell you the ban is part of much larger attempt to discredit their views on naked shorting. They believe that a small group of people is using Wikipedia as means of controlling public opinion. When you think of how the public consciousness of an issue can develop, one of the first things that's going to happen in today's age is people are going to Google the issue and then read the Wikipedia article that comes up, Byrne says. So if you can control that article, you can really deflect the discourse. Whatever the motives behind it, there's no doubt that the Wikipedia inner circle rules those four articles with an iron fist. And as Charles Ainsworth points out, this puts a cloud over the entire encyclopedia. Wikipedia, in its way, is of great benefit to the web community, he says. But I've also been greatly dismayed that Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities with ambition, secret personal agendas, and cold, ruthless behavior towards other editors and ideas that they perceive as threatening their power, position, or agendas. What's disheartening is that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation not only don't do anything about it, but they appear to support these charlatans to some degree. When Bagley attempted to level the playing field, he was banished immediately, Ainsworth continues. Obviously, there's something seriously wrong with the way Wikipedia is being managed and administered. I don't know if it threatens the long-term viability of the project or not, but it is cause for concern among those of us who spend a lot of hours actually trying to write quality articles. -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 05:53:38PM +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: This appears to be playing out in classic abuse-of-power style. Here's the bit that is especially thought-provoking: The only surprising thing is that they lasted that long as is. I presume the Wikipedia license allows forks, so that won't be that much of a problem in practice. P.S. I'm roach-motelling some of my 25 kMessages from Gmail into Apple mail, via IMAP. I always knew GUI MUAs sucked, now there's another data point. It doesn't help that it's a old Mac Mini, and Time Machine is fighting for drive access in the background. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
It's not just a reference - it's delicious (via Boing Boing) http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/03/beijing-restaurant-s.html Of course - the wikipedia has to be freshly edited or it tastes stale. On Dec 4, 2007 7:28 AM, Udhay Shankar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Casey O'Donnell wrote: [ on 06:24 PM 11/1/2007 ] Good question. I just have this vague unease that it's becoming a _de facto_ reference, and wanted to spend some cycles in clarifying my own misgivings about it. snip 1.) That other people have linked to Wikipedia based on what I'm searching for. 2.) Google is encouraging people with generic searches like the above to go there. I think either is interesting. I wouldn't say it is bad, but I do think I understand Udhay's unease. Dirty Laundry coming out (via Eugen) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On 10/31/07, Udhay Shankar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/31/07, Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shrug. Wikipedia isn't perfect, the criticisms are valid, but... so what? Good question. I just have this vague unease that it's becoming a _de facto_ reference, and wanted to spend some cycles in clarifying my own misgivings about it. For many ... generic searches (ie. stockholm) on Google you are directed to Wikipedia. Which indicates... something... which I think lends to that feeling of unease. Personally Wikipedia is a place where I might go to get some general ideas about something, but is by no means a place I actually start my searches for information. The fact that Google points me to Wikipedia indicates at least one of two things: 1.) That other people have linked to Wikipedia based on what I'm searching for. 2.) Google is encouraging people with generic searches like the above to go there. I think either is interesting. I wouldn't say it is bad, but I do think I understand Udhay's unease. Cheers. Casey
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
yet another xkcd on wikipedia http://xkcd.com/185/ On 10/31/07, Biju Chacko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While on the subject of Wikipedia: http://xkcd.com/333/ On 10/31/07, Udhay Shankar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Udhay Shankar N wrote: [ on 09:32 PM 10/30/2007 ] What's EDGE? http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/edge/index.shtml I posted the link above, as I'm trying to wean myself from posting Wikipedia links - I've come to have misgivings about how easily it can be gamed (indeed, how it games itself) - [1] is an example, I personally know of more. A great summary of all of the pluses and minuses of Wikipedia can be found in the discussion here [2]. Cory, want to add anything to your thought-provoking argument *for* Wikipedia on Making Light? I thought I'd ask the hivemind here for their thoughts, pro and con. Just another datum to add to the mix - the _current_ incarnation of the Wikipedia entry for EDGE [3] is more comprehensive than the gsmworld one. :-\ Udhay [1] http://nhw.livejournal.com/905163.html [2] http://www.nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008953.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enhanced_Data_Rates_for_GSM_Evolutionoldid=168133672 -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - does the frog know it has a latin name? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On 10/31/07, Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shrug. Wikipedia isn't perfect, the criticisms are valid, but... so what? Good question. I just have this vague unease that it's becoming a _de facto_ reference, and wanted to spend some cycles in clarifying my own misgivings about it. Just another datum to add to the mix - the _current_ incarnation of the Wikipedia entry for EDGE [3] is more comprehensive than the gsmworld one. :-\ And yet you decline to cite it, even by version (to avoid possible future bad edits?) Why? See my response above. And I ended up citing it anyway - and by version, too. :-\ Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 13:42 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: Good question. I just have this vague unease that it's becoming a _de facto_ reference, and wanted to spend some cycles in clarifying my own misgivings about it. wikipedia is not authoritative, but it never claims to be. all articles that truly follow the community guidelines have more authoritative sources, which should be cited in place of the wikipedia entry itself (or use a specific version url for convenience, if there are many sources you want to cite that are all listed in that version of the wikipedia article). articles that don't have such sources are often flagged as being unsupported. stupidly enough, even the USPTO has cited wikipedia... -rishab
[silk] Wikipedia
Udhay Shankar N wrote: [ on 09:32 PM 10/30/2007 ] What's EDGE? http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/edge/index.shtml I posted the link above, as I'm trying to wean myself from posting Wikipedia links - I've come to have misgivings about how easily it can be gamed (indeed, how it games itself) - [1] is an example, I personally know of more. A great summary of all of the pluses and minuses of Wikipedia can be found in the discussion here [2]. Cory, want to add anything to your thought-provoking argument *for* Wikipedia on Making Light? I thought I'd ask the hivemind here for their thoughts, pro and con. Just another datum to add to the mix - the _current_ incarnation of the Wikipedia entry for EDGE [3] is more comprehensive than the gsmworld one. :-\ Udhay [1] http://nhw.livejournal.com/905163.html [2] http://www.nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008953.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enhanced_Data_Rates_for_GSM_Evolutionoldid=168133672 -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
Just saw this: What Motivates Wikipedians: review of a survey snip * Altruism and humanitarian concerns * Responding to requests by friends or attempting to engage in an activity viewed favorably by important others * Chances to learn new things * Preparing for a new career or signaling knowledge to potential employers * Addressing personal problems, such as guilt at being more fortunate than others * Ego needs and public exhibition of knowledge * Ideological concerns, such as belief that information should be free * Fun snip http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/oreilly/radar/atom/~3/177322097/what_motivates.html
Re: [silk] Wikipedia
While on the subject of Wikipedia: http://xkcd.com/333/ On 10/31/07, Udhay Shankar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Udhay Shankar N wrote: [ on 09:32 PM 10/30/2007 ] What's EDGE? http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/edge/index.shtml I posted the link above, as I'm trying to wean myself from posting Wikipedia links - I've come to have misgivings about how easily it can be gamed (indeed, how it games itself) - [1] is an example, I personally know of more. A great summary of all of the pluses and minuses of Wikipedia can be found in the discussion here [2]. Cory, want to add anything to your thought-provoking argument *for* Wikipedia on Making Light? I thought I'd ask the hivemind here for their thoughts, pro and con. Just another datum to add to the mix - the _current_ incarnation of the Wikipedia entry for EDGE [3] is more comprehensive than the gsmworld one. :-\ Udhay [1] http://nhw.livejournal.com/905163.html [2] http://www.nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008953.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enhanced_Data_Rates_for_GSM_Evolutionoldid=168133672 -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Wikipedia: Atul Chitnis
On 3/16/06, Ravi Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thaths, didn't you have some linux-india archives posted someplace? http://linux-india.openscroll.org/ No comments about the rest of the controversy. Thaths -- Bart! With $10,000 we'd be millionaires! We could buy all kinds of useful things... like love. -- Homer J. Simpson
[silk] Wikipedia: Atul Chitnis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atul_Chitnis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atul_Chitnis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup_Taskforce/Atul_Chitnis Hmm, interesting. Thaths, didn't you have some linux-india archives posted someplace?
Re: [silk] Wikipedia: Atul Chitnis
Ravi Rao wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atul_Chitnis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atul_Chitnis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup_Taskforce/Atul_Chitnis Hmm, interesting. Thaths, didn't you have some linux-india archives posted someplace? the wikipedia page on linux-india has a link to these. oh - look for linux bangalore and blug on wikipedia.. two interesting pages to contrast.
