[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
I very much agree that it does not wholly replace Wikipedia, for indeep research it's the best. However, for quick searches I need an immediate answer - such as quickly understanding what the boss means when he's talking about the "debit leg" or some technical term I never heard, it already replaced Wikipedia. And indeed, for my work mate it already replaced Stackoverflow as the first place to look when he has doubts on coding. I'm pretty sure we're already being hurt by this, being myself one of the "hurters". Paulo Shabab Mustafa escreveu no dia quinta, 15/12/2022 à(s) 17:58: > OT continued - > > ChatGPT poses bigger threat to search engines, like Google or Human > generated knowledge platform like Stackoverflow, Quora than Wikipedia at > this moment of time. According to CNBC news article, Google already taking > a conservative stance towards this. [1] > > I my personal opinion, ChatGPT might not be replacing WP very newer > future. There is a chance that the startup behind ChatGPT will get burried > under lawsuits from big fishes in the pond if they feel any existential > threat. For example, Stackoverflow already banned (temporarily) ChatGPT. [2] > > Ref: > --- > [1] > https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/13/google-execs-warn-of-reputational-risk-with-chatgbt-like-tool.html > > [2] > https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:18 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> OT for the thread, but on the topic "Competition to Wikipedia" - >> >> This is very new for me (found about it yesterday, through a work mate), >> probably already well known for others - but a lot of people (including me) >> iw now using it extensively as an alternative to Wikipedia: >> https://chat.openai.com . >> >> Spare your time lecturing me about it not having reliable sources, or >> whatever argument you may find - I write Wikipedia and know all that pretty >> well. I'm just saying that people here that used to go to Wikipedia for >> quick results are now using that thing, and it's spreading like fire. >> Doesn't work for everything (like bios and current events), but for many >> stuff seems to be an advantageous replacement of wp, when what we want is >> quick & fairly reliable (even if not bulletproof) results. >> >> Best, >> Paulo >> >> Peter Southwood escreveu no dia quinta, >> 15/12/2022 à(s) 04:34: >> >>> Last I heard, Wikipedia is not for sale, so not much point in persuading >>> someone to try to buy it. Also some real competition could be good for >>> Wikipedia, and for that matter, good for the Wikimedia Foundation. It >>> would >>> also be very interesting to see how a real challenge to English Wikipedia >>> would be organized. All the previous attempts have failed, often quite >>> dismally. If it were to work better, many of us would probably join it, >>> if >>> it turns out to be a thing one could join. >>> Many of us are loyal to the concept of free knowledge, not so much to the >>> platform it is presented on. >>> Cheers, >>> Peter >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Rey Bueno via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org] >>> >>> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 19:01 >>> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Cc: reybue...@proton.me >>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of >>> English Wikipedia >>> >>> The last part of the great wall of text appears to persuade him to >>> invest in >>> alternatives instead of buying Wikipedia. For him Wiki is like a sole >>> McDonald's in a food dessert, and that the solution is to open new >>> "restaurants". >>> ___ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ >>> message/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/ >>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> ___ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing lis
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
The consequences will be a great sight to behold if ChatGPT reaches superhuman sentience and intelligence. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Z5MSX2OAR2MPWP5P52HRW2GZ52UI3Z63/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
OT continued - ChatGPT poses bigger threat to search engines, like Google or Human generated knowledge platform like Stackoverflow, Quora than Wikipedia at this moment of time. According to CNBC news article, Google already taking a conservative stance towards this. [1] I my personal opinion, ChatGPT might not be replacing WP very newer future. There is a chance that the startup behind ChatGPT will get burried under lawsuits from big fishes in the pond if they feel any existential threat. For example, Stackoverflow already banned (temporarily) ChatGPT. [2] Ref: --- [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/13/google-execs-warn-of-reputational-risk-with-chatgbt-like-tool.html [2] https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned On Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:18 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > OT for the thread, but on the topic "Competition to Wikipedia" - > > This is very new for me (found about it yesterday, through a work mate), > probably already well known for others - but a lot of people (including me) > iw now using it extensively as an alternative to Wikipedia: > https://chat.openai.com . > > Spare your time lecturing me about it not having reliable sources, or > whatever argument you may find - I write Wikipedia and know all that pretty > well. I'm just saying that people here that used to go to Wikipedia for > quick results are now using that thing, and it's spreading like fire. > Doesn't work for everything (like bios and current events), but for many > stuff seems to be an advantageous replacement of wp, when what we want is > quick & fairly reliable (even if not bulletproof) results. > > Best, > Paulo > > Peter Southwood escreveu no dia quinta, > 15/12/2022 à(s) 04:34: > >> Last I heard, Wikipedia is not for sale, so not much point in persuading >> someone to try to buy it. Also some real competition could be good for >> Wikipedia, and for that matter, good for the Wikimedia Foundation. It >> would >> also be very interesting to see how a real challenge to English Wikipedia >> would be organized. All the previous attempts have failed, often quite >> dismally. If it were to work better, many of us would probably join it, if >> it turns out to be a thing one could join. >> Many of us are loyal to the concept of free knowledge, not so much to the >> platform it is presented on. >> Cheers, >> Peter >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Rey Bueno via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org] >> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 19:01 >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Cc: reybue...@proton.me >> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of >> English Wikipedia >> >> The last part of the great wall of text appears to persuade him to invest >> in >> alternatives instead of buying Wikipedia. For him Wiki is like a sole >> McDonald's in a food dessert, and that the solution is to open new >> "restaurants". >> ___ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ >> message/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/ >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/> >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> ___ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VL2H4QTOIIEPIARBE34Q7Y7CLAMMTIG7/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B7Z7MCRF4AEBYWPBGXQJTUK44OJYAZAV/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VNYEKVXGFGGVSCMJBSFX7HFHAMJTQHI6/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
OT for the thread, but on the topic "Competition to Wikipedia" - This is very new for me (found about it yesterday, through a work mate), probably already well known for others - but a lot of people (including me) iw now using it extensively as an alternative to Wikipedia: https://chat.openai.com . Spare your time lecturing me about it not having reliable sources, or whatever argument you may find - I write Wikipedia and know all that pretty well. I'm just saying that people here that used to go to Wikipedia for quick results are now using that thing, and it's spreading like fire. Doesn't work for everything (like bios and current events), but for many stuff seems to be an advantageous replacement of wp, when what we want is quick & fairly reliable (even if not bulletproof) results. Best, Paulo Peter Southwood escreveu no dia quinta, 15/12/2022 à(s) 04:34: > Last I heard, Wikipedia is not for sale, so not much point in persuading > someone to try to buy it. Also some real competition could be good for > Wikipedia, and for that matter, good for the Wikimedia Foundation. It would > also be very interesting to see how a real challenge to English Wikipedia > would be organized. All the previous attempts have failed, often quite > dismally. If it were to work better, many of us would probably join it, if > it turns out to be a thing one could join. > Many of us are loyal to the concept of free knowledge, not so much to the > platform it is presented on. > Cheers, > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: Rey Bueno via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org] > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 19:01 > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Cc: reybue...@proton.me > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of > English Wikipedia > > The last part of the great wall of text appears to persuade him to invest > in > alternatives instead of buying Wikipedia. For him Wiki is like a sole > McDonald's in a food dessert, and that the solution is to open new > "restaurants". > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ > message/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/ > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VL2H4QTOIIEPIARBE34Q7Y7CLAMMTIG7/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B7Z7MCRF4AEBYWPBGXQJTUK44OJYAZAV/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
Hoi, The best competition to the English Wikipedia? Any other Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation increasingly puts its effort outside the borders of the USA. As a techie I am really pleased with a full fledged data centre in France. Then there is the Abstract Wikipedia, given that facts are findable and the advent of AI generated texts, it has the potential to give the staid English Wikipedia a run for its money. English Wikipedia is for me a bastion of conservatism. They consider anything outside of their direct influence problematic and at the same time technically they rely on Commons and Wikidata. However Wikidata has not enough sources it is said while repeatedly it has been shown to have more sources than English Wikipedia itself. References are considered fixed while Wikidata shows how what is used as a reference gets debunked. English Wikipedia could be aware of it if they cared at all.. Anyway, I hardly edit Wikipedia anymore. The politics of it all take too much time and effort. However, I still find a niche for myself in the Wikimedia ecosystem. Thanks, GerardM On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 05:34, Peter Southwood wrote: > Last I heard, Wikipedia is not for sale, so not much point in persuading > someone to try to buy it. Also some real competition could be good for > Wikipedia, and for that matter, good for the Wikimedia Foundation. It would > also be very interesting to see how a real challenge to English Wikipedia > would be organized. All the previous attempts have failed, often quite > dismally. If it were to work better, many of us would probably join it, if > it turns out to be a thing one could join. > Many of us are loyal to the concept of free knowledge, not so much to the > platform it is presented on. > Cheers, > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: Rey Bueno via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org] > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 19:01 > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Cc: reybue...@proton.me > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of > English Wikipedia > > The last part of the great wall of text appears to persuade him to invest > in > alternatives instead of buying Wikipedia. For him Wiki is like a sole > McDonald's in a food dessert, and that the solution is to open new > "restaurants". > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ > message/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/ > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VL2H4QTOIIEPIARBE34Q7Y7CLAMMTIG7/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KCSLJCOFUWITHOSXH2TKWEJ4ORJPBXFZ/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
Cool. Sad to see that there's still no viable alternatives ATM, though there's some potential in Atsme's Justapedia. The proposed pitch in attracting editors by offering knowledge posterity like the disc on Beresheet sounds interesting. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/T6MLEXT7WMTQ25XMM5Z3FUPAKIH2GQPZ/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
Last I heard, Wikipedia is not for sale, so not much point in persuading someone to try to buy it. Also some real competition could be good for Wikipedia, and for that matter, good for the Wikimedia Foundation. It would also be very interesting to see how a real challenge to English Wikipedia would be organized. All the previous attempts have failed, often quite dismally. If it were to work better, many of us would probably join it, if it turns out to be a thing one could join. Many of us are loyal to the concept of free knowledge, not so much to the platform it is presented on. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Rey Bueno via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 19:01 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: reybue...@proton.me Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia The last part of the great wall of text appears to persuade him to invest in alternatives instead of buying Wikipedia. For him Wiki is like a sole McDonald's in a food dessert, and that the solution is to open new "restaurants". ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ message/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VL2H4QTOIIEPIARBE34Q7Y7CLAMMTIG7/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
Bit of jumping to conclusions there. ("a lot" does not imply "all", and
labelling things that are "fairly obvious" as an "open secret" is also a
distortion of reality )
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Rey Bueno via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 10:27
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: reybue...@proton.me
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of
English Wikipedia
"A lot of it is fairly obvious"
So all the problems he described are already an open secret here, right? If
so then that's disheartening.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
message/S4U5HAWKEV2PQP6DYPM72J6GO7E45T6T/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/52IUOWETXGZO3FBQR5NEHXECWKCLNYVQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
Which reply supports some of his and Musk's points. On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 1:25 PM Dan Rosenthal wrote: > Man, that essay reads like someone spent a grand total of 5 days reading > Wikipedia policies, ventured into some politically fraught articles with a > right-wing agenda, got taken to AN/I for it, and subsequently blocked or > banned. > > Dan > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 6:41 AM Vi to wrote: > >> I don't know whether crossing the line "musk [...] fixing [...] >> Wikipedia" gives me more disgust or fear. >> >> Vito >> >> Il giorno lun 12 dic 2022 alle ore 05:12 reybueno1--- via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto: >> >>> This just up in /r/trueunpopularopinion and YCombinator: >>> >>> >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/zieyyf/wikipedia_is_not_so_great_and_is_overrated/ >>> >>> >>> Quoted below because it was explicitly released under public domain: >>> >>> You all have heard by now that Elon Musk said that Wikipedia has a "left >>> wing bias" when the article about Twitter Files had been suggested for >>> deletion. This has been received with mixed responses from liberals and >>> conservatives alike; the former dismissing it as "an attack on free >>> knowledge" and the latter cheering the move as "against censorship" and >>> vindication of their beliefs that Big Tech is biased against them. >>> >>> True, Wikipedia is supposedly editable by anyone around the world and I >>> had been an on and off editor there for years mostly doing small-ish edits >>> like fixing typos and reverting obvious vandalism. This is done while on IP >>> as opposed to using accounts because I would rather that some edits (i.e. >>> sensitive topics like religious and political areas) not tied to my name >>> and identity. However, reality is far from the preferred sugar-coated >>> description of Wikipedia, particularly its editing community. >>> >>> The editing community in overall is best described as a slightly >>> hierarchical and militaristic "do everything right" structure, >>> traditionally associated with Dell and recently Foxconn and now-defunct >>> Theranos. Exceptions apply in quieter and outlier areas such as local >>> geography and space, usually the top entry points for new users wanting to >>> try their first hand. There are higher tolerance of good-faith mistakes >>> such as point-of-view problems and using unreliable resources, which are >>> usually explained in detail on how to correct by them rather than a mere >>> warning template or even an abrupt block. >>> >>> Ultimately those sub-communities which can be said as populated by >>> exopedians, have relatively little to no power over the wider and core >>> communities, mostly dominated by metapedians. A third group called >>> mesopedians often alternates between these inner and outer workings. >>> Communities can have shared topical interest which are grouped by >>> WikiProject, an example being WikiProject Science >>> >>> I spend a lot of time casually browsing through edit wars (can be so >>> lame at times) like a fly on the wall, along with meta venues of Wikipedia >>> such as Articles for Deletion, Centralized discussion Neutral Point of View >>> Noticeboard, Biographical of Living Persons Noticeboard, Conflict of >>> Interest Noticeboard, Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents, Sockpuppet >>> investigations, Arbitration Committee noticeboard which is the "supreme >>> court" in Wikipedia community for serious behavioral and conduct disputes. >>> Therefore I can sum up how the editing community really functions, although >>> not really as extensive as you might expect because I am not a >>> "Wikipedioholic" with respect to inner workings. >>> >>> Deletionism and inclusionism >>> This has been very perennial and core reasons for just about any >>> disputes on Wikipedia ever D Deletionists treat Wikipedia as another >>> "regular encyclopedia" where information has to be limited once it become >>> very much to be covered; like cutting out junk, while inclusionists treats >>> Wikipedia as a comprehensive encyclopedia not bound by papers and thus can >>> afford to cover as much information as it can take; one man's junk could be >>> another man's treasure. Personally I support the latter and often the >>> conflict between two editing ideologies leads to factionalism, where >>> attempts to understand mutual feelings and perspectives are inadequate or >>> even none at all. >>> >>> There are no absolute standards of what defines "encyclopedic knowledge" >>> and "notability". Inclusionism posits that almost everything could become >>> valuable and encyclopedic in the future, even if they're aren't today. An >>> example I can think of is events, figures and stories from World War II. >>> Deletionism has been closely related to "academic standard kicks" and rely >>> on the premise that Wikipedia has to be of high standard and concise. There >>> are people who deem an addition of something as useful, and there are tho
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
The last part of the great wall of text appears to persuade him to invest in alternatives instead of buying Wikipedia. For him Wiki is like a sole McDonald's in a food dessert, and that the solution is to open new "restaurants". ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
"A lot of it is fairly obvious" So all the problems he described are already an open secret here, right? If so then that's disheartening. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/S4U5HAWKEV2PQP6DYPM72J6GO7E45T6T/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
Indeed, didn't want to sound ad hominem, but definitely some AN/I drama, the second most popular source of grandiose criticism after being the subject of a deleted bio. Vito Il giorno lun 12 dic 2022 alle ore 19:25 Dan Rosenthal ha scritto: > Man, that essay reads like someone spent a grand total of 5 days reading > Wikipedia policies, ventured into some politically fraught articles with a > right-wing agenda, got taken to AN/I for it, and subsequently blocked or > banned. > > Dan > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 6:41 AM Vi to wrote: > >> I don't know whether crossing the line "musk [...] fixing [...] >> Wikipedia" gives me more disgust or fear. >> >> Vito >> >> Il giorno lun 12 dic 2022 alle ore 05:12 reybueno1--- via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto: >> >>> This just up in /r/trueunpopularopinion and YCombinator: >>> >>> >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/zieyyf/wikipedia_is_not_so_great_and_is_overrated/ >>> >>> >>> Quoted below because it was explicitly released under public domain: >>> >>> You all have heard by now that Elon Musk said that Wikipedia has a "left >>> wing bias" when the article about Twitter Files had been suggested for >>> deletion. This has been received with mixed responses from liberals and >>> conservatives alike; the former dismissing it as "an attack on free >>> knowledge" and the latter cheering the move as "against censorship" and >>> vindication of their beliefs that Big Tech is biased against them. >>> >>> True, Wikipedia is supposedly editable by anyone around the world and I >>> had been an on and off editor there for years mostly doing small-ish edits >>> like fixing typos and reverting obvious vandalism. This is done while on IP >>> as opposed to using accounts because I would rather that some edits (i.e. >>> sensitive topics like religious and political areas) not tied to my name >>> and identity. However, reality is far from the preferred sugar-coated >>> description of Wikipedia, particularly its editing community. >>> >>> The editing community in overall is best described as a slightly >>> hierarchical and militaristic "do everything right" structure, >>> traditionally associated with Dell and recently Foxconn and now-defunct >>> Theranos. Exceptions apply in quieter and outlier areas such as local >>> geography and space, usually the top entry points for new users wanting to >>> try their first hand. There are higher tolerance of good-faith mistakes >>> such as point-of-view problems and using unreliable resources, which are >>> usually explained in detail on how to correct by them rather than a mere >>> warning template or even an abrupt block. >>> >>> Ultimately those sub-communities which can be said as populated by >>> exopedians, have relatively little to no power over the wider and core >>> communities, mostly dominated by metapedians. A third group called >>> mesopedians often alternates between these inner and outer workings. >>> Communities can have shared topical interest which are grouped by >>> WikiProject, an example being WikiProject Science >>> >>> I spend a lot of time casually browsing through edit wars (can be so >>> lame at times) like a fly on the wall, along with meta venues of Wikipedia >>> such as Articles for Deletion, Centralized discussion Neutral Point of View >>> Noticeboard, Biographical of Living Persons Noticeboard, Conflict of >>> Interest Noticeboard, Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents, Sockpuppet >>> investigations, Arbitration Committee noticeboard which is the "supreme >>> court" in Wikipedia community for serious behavioral and conduct disputes. >>> Therefore I can sum up how the editing community really functions, although >>> not really as extensive as you might expect because I am not a >>> "Wikipedioholic" with respect to inner workings. >>> >>> Deletionism and inclusionism >>> This has been very perennial and core reasons for just about any >>> disputes on Wikipedia ever D Deletionists treat Wikipedia as another >>> "regular encyclopedia" where information has to be limited once it become >>> very much to be covered; like cutting out junk, while inclusionists treats >>> Wikipedia as a comprehensive encyclopedia not bound by papers and thus can >>> afford to cover as much information as it can take; one man's junk could be >>> another man's treasure. Personally I support the latter and often the >>> conflict between two editing ideologies leads to factionalism, where >>> attempts to understand mutual feelings and perspectives are inadequate or >>> even none at all. >>> >>> There are no absolute standards of what defines "encyclopedic knowledge" >>> and "notability". Inclusionism posits that almost everything could become >>> valuable and encyclopedic in the future, even if they're aren't today. An >>> example I can think of is events, figures and stories from World War II. >>> Deletionism has been closely related to "academic standard kicks" and rely >>> on the premise t
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
Man, that essay reads like someone spent a grand total of 5 days reading Wikipedia policies, ventured into some politically fraught articles with a right-wing agenda, got taken to AN/I for it, and subsequently blocked or banned. Dan On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 6:41 AM Vi to wrote: > I don't know whether crossing the line "musk [...] fixing [...] Wikipedia" > gives me more disgust or fear. > > Vito > > Il giorno lun 12 dic 2022 alle ore 05:12 reybueno1--- via Wikimedia-l < > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto: > >> This just up in /r/trueunpopularopinion and YCombinator: >> >> >> https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/zieyyf/wikipedia_is_not_so_great_and_is_overrated/ >> >> >> Quoted below because it was explicitly released under public domain: >> >> You all have heard by now that Elon Musk said that Wikipedia has a "left >> wing bias" when the article about Twitter Files had been suggested for >> deletion. This has been received with mixed responses from liberals and >> conservatives alike; the former dismissing it as "an attack on free >> knowledge" and the latter cheering the move as "against censorship" and >> vindication of their beliefs that Big Tech is biased against them. >> >> True, Wikipedia is supposedly editable by anyone around the world and I >> had been an on and off editor there for years mostly doing small-ish edits >> like fixing typos and reverting obvious vandalism. This is done while on IP >> as opposed to using accounts because I would rather that some edits (i.e. >> sensitive topics like religious and political areas) not tied to my name >> and identity. However, reality is far from the preferred sugar-coated >> description of Wikipedia, particularly its editing community. >> >> The editing community in overall is best described as a slightly >> hierarchical and militaristic "do everything right" structure, >> traditionally associated with Dell and recently Foxconn and now-defunct >> Theranos. Exceptions apply in quieter and outlier areas such as local >> geography and space, usually the top entry points for new users wanting to >> try their first hand. There are higher tolerance of good-faith mistakes >> such as point-of-view problems and using unreliable resources, which are >> usually explained in detail on how to correct by them rather than a mere >> warning template or even an abrupt block. >> >> Ultimately those sub-communities which can be said as populated by >> exopedians, have relatively little to no power over the wider and core >> communities, mostly dominated by metapedians. A third group called >> mesopedians often alternates between these inner and outer workings. >> Communities can have shared topical interest which are grouped by >> WikiProject, an example being WikiProject Science >> >> I spend a lot of time casually browsing through edit wars (can be so lame >> at times) like a fly on the wall, along with meta venues of Wikipedia such >> as Articles for Deletion, Centralized discussion Neutral Point of View >> Noticeboard, Biographical of Living Persons Noticeboard, Conflict of >> Interest Noticeboard, Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents, Sockpuppet >> investigations, Arbitration Committee noticeboard which is the "supreme >> court" in Wikipedia community for serious behavioral and conduct disputes. >> Therefore I can sum up how the editing community really functions, although >> not really as extensive as you might expect because I am not a >> "Wikipedioholic" with respect to inner workings. >> >> Deletionism and inclusionism >> This has been very perennial and core reasons for just about any disputes >> on Wikipedia ever D Deletionists treat Wikipedia as another "regular >> encyclopedia" where information has to be limited once it become very much >> to be covered; like cutting out junk, while inclusionists treats Wikipedia >> as a comprehensive encyclopedia not bound by papers and thus can afford to >> cover as much information as it can take; one man's junk could be another >> man's treasure. Personally I support the latter and often the conflict >> between two editing ideologies leads to factionalism, where attempts to >> understand mutual feelings and perspectives are inadequate or even none at >> all. >> >> There are no absolute standards of what defines "encyclopedic knowledge" >> and "notability". Inclusionism posits that almost everything could become >> valuable and encyclopedic in the future, even if they're aren't today. An >> example I can think of is events, figures and stories from World War II. >> Deletionism has been closely related to "academic standard kicks" and rely >> on the premise that Wikipedia has to be of high standard and concise. There >> are people who deem an addition of something as useful, and there are those >> who think it's "trivia" or "crufty" something that is nominally discouraged >> if not prohibited by Wikipedia's documentation (see this in particular, >> although sometimes exceptions are applied
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
I don't know whether crossing the line "musk [...] fixing [...] Wikipedia" gives me more disgust or fear. Vito Il giorno lun 12 dic 2022 alle ore 05:12 reybueno1--- via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto: > This just up in /r/trueunpopularopinion and YCombinator: > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/zieyyf/wikipedia_is_not_so_great_and_is_overrated/ > > > Quoted below because it was explicitly released under public domain: > > You all have heard by now that Elon Musk said that Wikipedia has a "left > wing bias" when the article about Twitter Files had been suggested for > deletion. This has been received with mixed responses from liberals and > conservatives alike; the former dismissing it as "an attack on free > knowledge" and the latter cheering the move as "against censorship" and > vindication of their beliefs that Big Tech is biased against them. > > True, Wikipedia is supposedly editable by anyone around the world and I > had been an on and off editor there for years mostly doing small-ish edits > like fixing typos and reverting obvious vandalism. This is done while on IP > as opposed to using accounts because I would rather that some edits (i.e. > sensitive topics like religious and political areas) not tied to my name > and identity. However, reality is far from the preferred sugar-coated > description of Wikipedia, particularly its editing community. > > The editing community in overall is best described as a slightly > hierarchical and militaristic "do everything right" structure, > traditionally associated with Dell and recently Foxconn and now-defunct > Theranos. Exceptions apply in quieter and outlier areas such as local > geography and space, usually the top entry points for new users wanting to > try their first hand. There are higher tolerance of good-faith mistakes > such as point-of-view problems and using unreliable resources, which are > usually explained in detail on how to correct by them rather than a mere > warning template or even an abrupt block. > > Ultimately those sub-communities which can be said as populated by > exopedians, have relatively little to no power over the wider and core > communities, mostly dominated by metapedians. A third group called > mesopedians often alternates between these inner and outer workings. > Communities can have shared topical interest which are grouped by > WikiProject, an example being WikiProject Science > > I spend a lot of time casually browsing through edit wars (can be so lame > at times) like a fly on the wall, along with meta venues of Wikipedia such > as Articles for Deletion, Centralized discussion Neutral Point of View > Noticeboard, Biographical of Living Persons Noticeboard, Conflict of > Interest Noticeboard, Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents, Sockpuppet > investigations, Arbitration Committee noticeboard which is the "supreme > court" in Wikipedia community for serious behavioral and conduct disputes. > Therefore I can sum up how the editing community really functions, although > not really as extensive as you might expect because I am not a > "Wikipedioholic" with respect to inner workings. > > Deletionism and inclusionism > This has been very perennial and core reasons for just about any disputes > on Wikipedia ever D Deletionists treat Wikipedia as another "regular > encyclopedia" where information has to be limited once it become very much > to be covered; like cutting out junk, while inclusionists treats Wikipedia > as a comprehensive encyclopedia not bound by papers and thus can afford to > cover as much information as it can take; one man's junk could be another > man's treasure. Personally I support the latter and often the conflict > between two editing ideologies leads to factionalism, where attempts to > understand mutual feelings and perspectives are inadequate or even none at > all. > > There are no absolute standards of what defines "encyclopedic knowledge" > and "notability". Inclusionism posits that almost everything could become > valuable and encyclopedic in the future, even if they're aren't today. An > example I can think of is events, figures and stories from World War II. > Deletionism has been closely related to "academic standard kicks" and rely > on the premise that Wikipedia has to be of high standard and concise. There > are people who deem an addition of something as useful, and there are those > who think it's "trivia" or "crufty" something that is nominally discouraged > if not prohibited by Wikipedia's documentation (see this in particular, > although sometimes exceptions are applied through the spirit of "Ignoring > all rules for sake of improvement", which are frequent at entertainment and > gaming topics). > > On pages, notability debates around a person subject and otherwise are > frequently the main point of discussion in Articles for Deletion threads, > where articles deemed not substantial enough (such as very few sources) are > suggested
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia
"Citations needed." Not saying it is all wrong, a lot of it is fairly obvious, but some of it is, or appears to be, somewhat biased. Could use a bit of copyediting in places. Also, does not seem to say anything new. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: reybueno1--- via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org] Sent: 11 December 2022 19:05 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: reybue...@proton.me Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia This just up in /r/trueunpopularopinion and YCombinator: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/zieyyf/wikipedia_is_n ot_so_great_and_is_overrated/ Quoted below because it was explicitly released under public domain: You all have heard by now that Elon Musk said that Wikipedia has a "left wing bias" when the article about Twitter Files had been suggested for deletion. This has been received with mixed responses from liberals and conservatives alike; the former dismissing it as "an attack on free knowledge" and the latter cheering the move as "against censorship" and vindication of their beliefs that Big Tech is biased against them. True, Wikipedia is supposedly editable by anyone around the world and I had been an on and off editor there for years mostly doing small-ish edits like fixing typos and reverting obvious vandalism. This is done while on IP as opposed to using accounts because I would rather that some edits (i.e. sensitive topics like religious and political areas) not tied to my name and identity. However, reality is far from the preferred sugar-coated description of Wikipedia, particularly its editing community. The editing community in overall is best described as a slightly hierarchical and militaristic "do everything right" structure, traditionally associated with Dell and recently Foxconn and now-defunct Theranos. Exceptions apply in quieter and outlier areas such as local geography and space, usually the top entry points for new users wanting to try their first hand. There are higher tolerance of good-faith mistakes such as point-of-view problems and using unreliable resources, which are usually explained in detail on how to correct by them rather than a mere warning template or even an abrupt block. Ultimately those sub-communities which can be said as populated by exopedians, have relatively little to no power over the wider and core communities, mostly dominated by metapedians. A third group called mesopedians often alternates between these inner and outer workings. Communities can have shared topical interest which are grouped by WikiProject, an example being WikiProject Science I spend a lot of time casually browsing through edit wars (can be so lame at times) like a fly on the wall, along with meta venues of Wikipedia such as Articles for Deletion, Centralized discussion Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, Biographical of Living Persons Noticeboard, Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents, Sockpuppet investigations, Arbitration Committee noticeboard which is the "supreme court" in Wikipedia community for serious behavioral and conduct disputes. Therefore I can sum up how the editing community really functions, although not really as extensive as you might expect because I am not a "Wikipedioholic" with respect to inner workings. Deletionism and inclusionism This has been very perennial and core reasons for just about any disputes on Wikipedia ever D Deletionists treat Wikipedia as another "regular encyclopedia" where information has to be limited once it become very much to be covered; like cutting out junk, while inclusionists treats Wikipedia as a comprehensive encyclopedia not bound by papers and thus can afford to cover as much information as it can take; one man's junk could be another man's treasure. Personally I support the latter and often the conflict between two editing ideologies leads to factionalism, where attempts to understand mutual feelings and perspectives are inadequate or even none at all. There are no absolute standards of what defines "encyclopedic knowledge" and "notability". Inclusionism posits that almost everything could become valuable and encyclopedic in the future, even if they're aren't today. An example I can think of is events, figures and stories from World War II. Deletionism has been closely related to "academic standard kicks" and rely on the premise that Wikipedia has to be of high standard and concise. There are people who deem an addition of something as useful, and there are those who think it's "trivia" or "crufty" something that is nominally discouraged if not prohibited by Wikipedia's documentation (see this in particular, although sometimes exceptions are applied through the spirit of "Ignoring all rules for sake of improvement", which are frequent at entertainment and gaming topics). On pages, notability debates around a person subject and otherwise are frequently the main point
