forgive me for being suspect about a random anti wikipedia website at a time when the right wing is spending billions to discredit and shut down wikipedia.
The issue that the article raises is legitimate, but actually looking through their archives is baffling, they’re really just hellbent on shitting on WP. One of their most read articles says Wikipedia should attract more female editors by reducing the anonymity on the site and making it more like a social media platform. What the hell? https://wikipediocracy.com/why-women-have-no-time-for-wikipedia/
Ah yes, I’d love people online to be positive I’m a woman and not just probably one! That would make me feel extremely safe! I am being extremely sarcastic!
I like how you think …
This is what the rich choose to do instead of compete in a free market
Are you saying the article is false?
And do you think the right wing doesn’t spend any money to edit Wikipedia?
Do not go after Wikipedia because of one or two shitty people. We need it as a country. I would argue that the world needs it. Make it better and support it while calling out the shitty stuff, don’t take it down.
What the world needs, what you need as a country, is for people to be a bit more discerning and conscious about the reliability of what they read online, and that includes not treating Wikipedia like holy scripture in the way that far too many people do.
Do go for the shitty admins with no mercy though. We don’t need Wiki to slowly rot from the inside.
The article is about protecting the integrity of Wikipedia from admins with ulterior motives. Regardless of the correctness of the article, “going after Wikipedia to take it down” does not describe the topic in the slightest. Why does this have so many upvotes? Are any of you even reading the linked article?
I was going off the comments in this thread at the time. The right wants wikipedia to go away.
To answer your question, It is safe to assume most people read the title and the abstract but don’t actually read the article
We need it as a country.
We need it as a world.
Agreed. Especially in times like these - having a free and open source of information is incredibly important.
Why do US citizens think everyone on the internet is from their country ?
What part of their comment assumes that everyone else is from their country? I only see them referring to themselves and their own country.
If I said “we need public transit as a city” am I assuming that everyone lives in my city or am I simply talking about my own city? I don’t see why this is any different and it seems very nitpicky.
If I said “we need public transit as a city” am I assuming that everyone lives in my city or am I simply talking about my own city?
I mean you meant the US, though, right?
Is it wrong to want to talk about the place you live in without telling people where you live? Should everyone be required to state the place they live in any time they talk about it? I don’t really see what the problem is with speaking about your place of residence without revealing where you live. I don’t get how not mentioning where you live means you assume everyone knows. Maybe you not knowing is intentional.
While I think it’s annoying when people assume others live in the US, I think it’s even more annoying to both assume people who don’t mention where they live must live in the US and also assume they intended you to know that they live in the US.
I was just saying that way you said it does seem to assume others understood you’re talking about the US. If you specify it (“we in the US”) then that avoids the whole issue.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree then, I don’t think that is at all the obvious interpretation and I don’t think everyone needs to clarify where they live when talking about it to “avoid the issue”.
Imo if people making assumptions about others living in the US annoys you then you should find it more annoying when someone assumes where you live AND assumes you intended to be presumptuous about it.
It’s pedantic. At best because someone wants to virtue signal by tilting at windmills. At worst It’s a bad faith argument being made to isolate someone. In both cases it’s shite behavior:
An example would be assailing someone for not liking cookies when they simply said they enjoy cake. This tactic was originally used by trolls and hate groups to splinter larger social groups support structure and/or put people on the backfoot… It’s become so commonplace people will do it just because the opportunity presents itself. Because someone else will if they don’t, anyway. Might as well get the glory of taking someone down a peg.
It’s pathetic. Op made an affirmative statement about something they believed in and was promptly shit on by some cunt who brought nothing meaningful to the table themselves. What’s worse is the troll initially was getting nothing but positive reinforcement so they could go and do it again. Are we still enjoying all the polarizing “LOL [insert group] BAD!” It really brings the community together.
You don’t need to engage every person doing that shit… but for fucks sake stop upvoting it and reinforcing the behavior.
If I said “we need public transit as a city” am I assuming that everyone lives in my city or am I simply talking about my own city?
That’s exactly what I would assume, because you’re talking like your city is the default and everyone knows which one you’re talking about.
talking like your city is the default and everyone knows which one you’re talking about.
Does this mean that everyone must always specify the geographic area they are from when they talk about it lest they risk being accused of assuming everyone knows? I often say that “we need public transit in my city” and it never once crossed my mind that other people would know or assume what city I’m referring to.
I still don’t see how saying that you want x or y in your country is equivalent to talking like your community is the default.
I would totally agree if the statement was “we need x in my country and you all should vote for it” because that would be assuming everyone reading is able to participate and therefore lives there. But that’s far from what the statement was, which made no assumptions and didn’t even mention a country. All they said was that they want something in their country.
“We need this as a city” and “we need this in my city” have a different meaning imo. First one makes it sound like you’re including us in your “we”, as in the people in your city.
Doesn’t “as a city” just tell you who the “we” refers to? As in “we, the people of our city, need x”? That’s how I understand it.
Yes it does imo, and the “we” would include everyone else as part of that city, which is what bothers some people.
While you’re right. It would be better to say something like “I need it for my country” or “US needs it”. Since English doesn’t distinguish between inclusive and exclusive “we”, it can lead to the conclusion that the commenter supposes people reading their comment are from US as well.
I agree it could be more clear, but I don’t think it’s fair to jump down their throat when they didn’t even mention the US. It just strikes me as an uncharitable interpretation.
deleted by creator
(Protip: It’s because we know they’ve assumed the US as the default country, since that’s a really common phenomenon)
I think that would be a valid complaint if they had actually lumped everyone in this thread into their statement by assuming that everyone here lives in the US by default, but I sincerely think that any charitable interpretation of their comment reads as “we” simply meaning “the people of my country”.
Yeah I realized my reply was a bit silly so I retracted it, I’m guessing I was a bit late and you’d already replied.
It’s all good! For some reason your comment still shows up in my inbox in Sync so I didn’t realize
While, surely, OP was speaking English - given the world state why did you immediately jump to the conclusion that the country being referred to was the US? Yes - the statement wasn’t broad enough to perhaps include you but it wasn’t narrow or hateful in its intent. People (broad statement, including you) need to maybe find some chill and perhaps look for common ground rather than constantly being pedantic cunts. There were a variety of ways to approach that statement without being a twat… so kudos for just going for it - most people would have more tact.
why did you immediately jump to the conclusion that the country being referred to was the US?
Probably because there’s really only one nationality of people who do this lol
Odd. In my experience I have seen many people refer to their home country in that way. Do you refer to your country differently? Perhaps instead of country if OP said here that would have left the pedants less triggered. I digress. Just because you view something as commonplace - does not automatically make it the rule… much less actually reality.
I’ve had people be absolutely furious when I didn’t specify that the country I was talking about was Finland and not the US.
“We should do X”
“But we do, here’s a link”
“That’s about the US, not Finland”
“Why would you assume we know you’re from Finland??”
It’s pretty funny and I admit that I do it on purpose.
Why are non-americans so fucking pretentious on the Internet?
Food for thought: as polarizing as this statement is - it’s not all that different from the cheap (generalizing) shot at OP for not having a broad enough statement.
I’m uncertain if that’s what @roofuskit@lemmy.world was going for … but regardless: either by the statement itself or by the apparent downvote pummeling he got - demonstrates perfectly that nobody likes the feeling of getting singled out simply because of their grouping.
It’s almost always a dick move. Unless the group in question is a hate group or nazis… because fuck them. Topically - this behavior was (and is) championed by aforementioned groups.
Put simply: we can do better. Better than reddit at least, right?
On what basis do you suppose one is worse than the other? I think both are
I just thought it was fair game to make a stupidly sweeping assumption. I don’t actually think all non-americans are pretentious. But the loud ones here on Lemmy sure love to make broad sweeping statements about entire countries.
Hah. I should have refreshed. I just wrote a small novel theorizing you might have been making that exact point. Cheeky ;) I found it amusing - even if the point of it got buried (but made for another great example…)
I am non-american and pedantic though not pretentious, be it a counterexample *_*
It only takes a single incident like this for people to completely loose trust in Wikipedia, granted Wikipedia was already put to an insanely unreasonable standard.
Of course that’s not true. A single incident on a massive website like this is not going to force people who actually trusted Wikipedia before to stop trusting it in the future.
Not really, but I am sick and tired of Wikipedia haters constantly using every tiny mistake to prove “Wikipedia cant be trusted”. Granted they still use the age old lie of “anyone can edit it” and “nobody moderates it”.
After finishing the PhD, I got emails from people saying that for money they would manage a Wikipedia article for me. They said they had people in high places to make that my article communicates the right message.
Dear …,
Have you ever wondered of having a Wikipedia page for yourself or your company? We can help you get a Wikipedia page for yourself or your brand.
Why have a Wikipedia page?
Google loves Wikipedia and as such ranks it high in search results. Wikipedia is
also the first place people go when they Google your name. By leveraging
Wikipedia, you can help control your Online Profile and present yourself to the
world. Usually Wikipedia only accepts pages on celebrities and famous companies,
if you are looking to get one for yourself, we can help you with that. Having a page
for yourself in Wikipedia, brings you more credibility and makes you more
famous.
We have been editing on Wikipedia for 9+ years and We’ve created tons of pages
for companies, people, brands, products, and of course for academic purposes as
well.
We own multiple accounts on Wikipedia with page curation and new page
reviewer rights, so we can create and moderate pages with almost zero risk of
another mod taking it down.
There are few Wikipedia editors who are willing to create a page for money, and
most of them are scared to offer this service directly, so they do it through their
trusted sellers who mark up the price to $1500 - $2500 per page.
Because you’re buying directly from an experienced Wikipedia editor and mod,
you’ll get your page a lot cheaper, faster and with more reliability.
Let me know if you are interested.
RegardsI’m guessing how that goes is you pay them, they do actually make you a page, it gets quickly deleted for not meeting Wikipedia’s standards, and then they go “sorry no refunds”. Step 0 to getting a Wikipedia page about yourself is to be notable enough for one, which >99.9% of people are not.
And even if technically notable enough, you still need some objective sources for any claims made, even simple things like profession, even if your works speak for themselves. And what the mods deem an acceptable source seems arbitrary.
I listen to a lot of indie music or local smaller bands, and often, even though they gig a lot and have several albums practically on every digital platform, I can’t find the bands in there, nor any of their members.
Often there’s a red page there with some contributor discussions where they argue with each other about these things.
Seems so wonky to me, since I just came from their gig, having listened to them for 10+ years.
You can ask me about sources. We probably all know what “reliable” means, and claims may cite any reliable source (even sources written by the subject of the article if the fact is uncontroversial). However, for an article to be included in Wikipedia, and mainly so that it’s possible for the article to be improved so that it conforms with Wikipedia’s guidelines, articles must pass “notability” (a misnomer, see efforts to change its name); the biggest component of notability that’s most often failed is that there is enough coverage in reliable sources not written by the subject, and that’s precisely so that we won’t have an article that’s entirely the subject’s own puffery that turns out to be false or egregiously biased. (Not an admin because I probably have too short a temper, but nonetheless experienced.)
Thanks! I’ll contact them.
I’m surprised and not surprised I guess that there’s a business offering to write Wikipedia articles like this. I suppose it’s naivety to think that Wikipedia articles are written with good intentions.
I suppose it’s naivety to think that Wikipedia articles are written with good intentions.
I think the amazing thing is that most still are.
The vast majority, in fact.
Yeah, all those biased articles on procyonidi… what are you talking about?
For some reason they didn’t reach out to me after I received my doctorate in Geopsychology at Abide University…
If the information on the page is accurate, what exactly is the issue here?
What does the PR acronym stand for ?
- Roman people
- pull request
- parliamentary report
- press release
- prize ring
- proportional representation
- Puerto Rico
- Permanent Resident
- Progress Report
- Pressure Regulator
- Park Ridge
- Pattern Recognition
- PageRank
- Planning and Responsibility
- Performance Review
- Performance Rating
- Problem Report
- Papa Roach
- Personal Record
- Peer Review
- ⁝
People roman ?
Yeah I read it Pull request first time lmao
People roman ?
I found it odd, too: dictionary entry. I’m guessing it’s cross language: romance languages tend to place nouns before modifiers. Or maybe it’s “People of Rome”?
From latin: populus Rōmānus
In french could be peuple romain for example
Thanks !
Tried to add that the (two) famous classic swedish films “sälskaps resan 1 & 2” were copies of the french Les Bronzés, and remove the “is on DVD for exceptionnally cheap”.
Got reverted after like 1 minute.
Tried a bunch of times, complaints to no avail.
Some years later I tried again but you could no longer make changes IIRC.
Just checked, info still missing.
Edit: to all the doubtfully people, here is one reversed edit I aparently did in 2023: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sällskapsresan&diff=prev&oldid=53585812 If someone lnows how to search for reversed edits …
Edit: mer info på svenska: här
Edit: Some say the specialized “swedish” jokes in the film was stolen from a Finnish film mamed Callemoss.
I just checked the articles for “Sällskapsresan” and “French Fried Vacation”. The only edit that was reverted (or at least the only edit whose author would’ve been notified by the revert) changed “Norwegian” to “German” on the former page. I also didn’t find “is on DVD for exceptionally cheap” anywhere. None of these articles are protected (i.e. “locked”) either. Which article did this happen on?
It was like 10 years ago.
Well, you still managed to check it, no?
The DVD ad was from ten years ago. My attempt to change things was from ten years ago. The blatant stealing/copying is still missing.
Which article is this?
No article, Wikipedia.
It strongly looks like you’re making things up lol
It is trivial to check what changes someone did or didn’t make 10 years ago on Wikipedia, if you know which page of Wikipedia it was on. Which page was it on?
Ah, of course, I was looking at the English Wikipedia article. Still, the Swedish article mentions Les Bronzés, no?
Oh, you are right!
Likheter mellan Sällskapsresan och den franska filmen Les bronzés (1978) har påtalats
A meager note IMO, and not by me, but the truth is out there ^^
Thanks!
What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”? It seems like a fine article to me, and as the article mentioned, Tinucherian disclosed his COI and appropriately sought review for edits in this case (though as the article also mentions, he’s edited other articles the wrong way).
What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”?
It’s all part of their various horseshit attempt at making something which is pretty simple an innocuous into something that it isn’t.
Within the last few days, it looks like someone raised the issue on this guy’s page, the arbitration committee is getting in touch with him, and he’s saying he’ll get back to them. Presumably there’s a minor conflict of interest and they’ll look over the article and make sure he didn’t do anything slanty to it and then tell him to stay away from COI-adjacent articles in the future.
There’s absolutely nothing sinister here, and they are stringing together a bunch of misleading stuff (like “mostly PR”) to make a mountain out of a molehill to discredit Wikipedia. I’ve noticed a bunch of people doing this, presumably there is some organized campaign which actually is sinister in the way they’re implying WP is, that is trying to make people think badly of them.
It’s not happening in a vacuum. Elon Musk has made an enemy of Wikipedia.
Both things are technically true: the article is primarily made up of content literally written by the company or people contracted by them for PR purposes, and it is a Good Article (Wikipedia jargon for having passed a review of certain quality standards around writing, coverage and sourcing, but not the higher standard required to be classed as a Featured Article).
How much of a problem this is probably depends on the subject. Does Juniper Networks have any bad practices which the article omits because the people who researched it (i.e. Juniper Networks) didn’t think they needed to go in the article? You’d basically need an independent observer to research anything that potentially should be in the article but isn’t there, but how many people that aren’t getting paid are invested in researching a corporate networking business?
There’s absolutely merit to Wikipedia having articles that are written by people paid to write them by their subjects, because a lot of it would otherwise be missing from Wikipedia entirely. But it’s also good to know that many articles are not necessarily written by impartial authors.
How much of a problem this is probably depends on the subject.
I think it also depends on the extensiveness. Basically every corporate page on wikipedia is PR, right? It means a huge chunk of the website is just commercials. That tracks with my experience - especially on corporate pages and similar.
They should recruit more Reddit mods.
Good thing they got caught
Pretty sure wikipedia is almost entirely a compendium of PR posts.
