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

[Anthony Cole]

It's still there. Still linking to a local Kmart store. I'll email legal
and point them to this thread.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, 8:35 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Yea, looks like a K*mart ad.
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 2:55 AM Jan Ainali  wrote:
>
> > Well, I guess Occam has it that a local Kmart store thought it was good
> to
> > use a keyword that put them in the top of a fairiy common search result.
> > Sneaky.
> >
> > Med vänliga hälsningar
> > Jan Ainali
> > http://ainali.com
> >
> > 2018-04-26 6:43 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :
> >
> > > >
> > > > ​No​
> > > >> thing to do with Wikimedia Australia, we have made no such request.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > G
> > > ​angarra
> > > .
> > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > >  > > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
> > > .
> > > ___
> > > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Samuel Klein]

Yea, looks like a K*mart ad.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 2:55 AM Jan Ainali  wrote:

> Well, I guess Occam has it that a local Kmart store thought it was good to
> use a keyword that put them in the top of a fairiy common search result.
> Sneaky.
>
> Med vänliga hälsningar
> Jan Ainali
> http://ainali.com
>
> 2018-04-26 6:43 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :
>
> > >
> > > ​No​
> > >> thing to do with Wikimedia Australia, we have made no such request.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > G
> > ​angarra
> > .
> > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > Order
> > here
> >  > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
> > .
> > ___
> > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Jan Ainali]

Well, I guess Occam has it that a local Kmart store thought it was good to
use a keyword that put them in the top of a fairiy common search result.
Sneaky.

Med vänliga hälsningar
Jan Ainali
http://ainali.com

2018-04-26 6:43 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :

> >
> > ​No​
> >> thing to do with Wikimedia Australia, we have made no such request.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> G
> ​angarra
> .
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> Order
> here
>  reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
> .
> ___
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you Gnangarra.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, 12:44 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> >
> > ​No​
> >> thing to do with Wikimedia Australia, we have made no such request.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> G
> ​angarra
> .
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> Order
> here
> <
> https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> >
> .
> ___
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Gnangarra]

>
> ​No​
>> thing to do with Wikimedia Australia, we have made no such request.
>
>
>
>



-- 
G
​angarra
.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here

.
___
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Gnangarra]

Nothing to do with Wikimedia Australia, we have made no such request.

On 25 April 2018 at 19:52, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Maybe it’s by an affiliate (WMAU?). Presumably it has to be someone with
> permission to use the trademark, otherwise a request to google to turn it
> off should be made?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 25 Apr 2018, at 05:54, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Joseph. How weird.
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 at 3:01 pm, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Anthony,
> >>
> >> Apologies for the delay on this.
> >>
> >> To the best of our knowledge, this ad isn't being run by the Wikimedia
> >> Foundation nor any vendor of the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Seddon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That Google ad (describing Wikipedia as the fact-checked encyclopedia)
> is
> >>> still the top result when I search for “wikipedia” in Australia.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 8:57 pm, Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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" 
> >>>> 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 
> >>>> 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
> >&g

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

[Michael Peel]

Maybe it’s by an affiliate (WMAU?). Presumably it has to be someone with 
permission to use the trademark, otherwise a request to google to turn it off 
should be made?

Thanks,
Mike

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 05:54, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Joseph. How weird.
> 
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 at 3:01 pm, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
> 
>> Hey Anthony,
>> 
>> Apologies for the delay on this.
>> 
>> To the best of our knowledge, this ad isn't being run by the Wikimedia
>> Foundation nor any vendor of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Seddon
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>> 
>>> That Google ad (describing Wikipedia as the fact-checked encyclopedia) is
>>> still the top result when I search for “wikipedia” in Australia.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 8:57 pm, Isaac Olatunde >> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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" 
>>>> 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 
>>>> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>> 
>>>>> _

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

[Anthony Cole]

Thanks Joseph. How weird.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 at 3:01 pm, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey Anthony,
>
> Apologies for the delay on this.
>
> To the best of our knowledge, this ad isn't being run by the Wikimedia
> Foundation nor any vendor of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > That Google ad (describing Wikipedia as the fact-checked encyclopedia) is
> > still the top result when I search for “wikipedia” in Australia.
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 8:57 pm, Isaac Olatunde  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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" 
> > > 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 
> > > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >

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

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey Anthony,

Apologies for the delay on this.

To the best of our knowledge, this ad isn't being run by the Wikimedia
Foundation nor any vendor of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Regards
Seddon



On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> That Google ad (describing Wikipedia as the fact-checked encyclopedia) is
> still the top result when I search for “wikipedia” in Australia.
>
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 8:57 pm, Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > 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" 
> > 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 
> > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https

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

[Anthony Cole]

That Google ad (describing Wikipedia as the fact-checked encyclopedia) is
still the top result when I search for “wikipedia” in Australia.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 8:57 pm, Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> 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" 
> 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 
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

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"  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  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The notion that unsourced articles need to be eradicated is fundamentally
so wrong. The notion should be; we are going to source the unsourced
articles and ensure that we provide the best information possible.

Hostility only ensures that the point of view of the person who is hostile
will dominate not that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 15 April 2018 at 16:50, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> 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 :
>
> > 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 
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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 :

> 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  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you, Philippe and Joseph.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 at 8:22 am, Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

>  Hey Anthony.
>
> These emails came in on a weekend and today is a WMF holiday so I suspect
> it'll be another 24 hours or so before a response will get to you :)
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Philippe Beaudette  >
> wrote:
>
> > I suspect that the ad in question is a freebie, donated through Google's
> > giveaway to nonprofits. If so there is a point person at wmf (maybe in
> the
> > advancement team?) Who would know for sure.
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:10 PM Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > 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 
> > 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 <
> osama...@hotmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > >> 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 <
> ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > > > 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
> > > > >> > ___
>

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

[Joseph Seddon]

 Hey Anthony.

These emails came in on a weekend and today is a WMF holiday so I suspect
it'll be another 24 hours or so before a response will get to you :)

Regards
Seddon

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> I suspect that the ad in question is a freebie, donated through Google's
> giveaway to nonprofits. If so there is a point person at wmf (maybe in the
> advancement team?) Who would know for sure.
>
> Philippe
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:10 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > 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  >
> > 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 
> 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  >:
> > > >
> > > >> 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 
> > > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > > >>
> > > >> ___
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guideli

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

[Philippe Beaudette]

I suspect that the ad in question is a freebie, donated through Google's
giveaway to nonprofits. If so there is a point person at wmf (maybe in the
advancement team?) Who would know for sure.

Philippe

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:10 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:

> 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 
> 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  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 :
> > >
> > >> 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 
> > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lis

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

[Anthony Cole]

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 
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  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 :
> >
> >> 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 
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Robert Fernandez]

> "🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥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  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 :
>
>> 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  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[WereSpielChequers]

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  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Samuel Klein]

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  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 <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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
> >  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 ‏<
> > ahcole...@gmail.com
> > >>:
> > >
> > >> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Jane Darnell]

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 <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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
>  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 ‏<
> ahcole...@gmail.com
> >>:
> >
> >> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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
 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 ‏>:
>
>> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

Looks good to me.
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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 ‏:

> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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 
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  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

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

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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  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
>
> --
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[James Salsman]

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
 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 ‏>:
>
>> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Amir E. Aharoni]

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 ‏:

> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Vi to]

"🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥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 :

> 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  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Anthony Cole]

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 
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  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

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  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Robert Fernandez]

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  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Anthony Cole]

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

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 at 8:53 pm, Anthony Cole  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
>
> --
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

[Anthony Cole]

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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,