[Wikimedia-l] Was macht dich diese Woche glücklich? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 15 April 2018)

[Pine W]

*Conference*

The 2018 Wikimedia Conference
 starts this
week in Germany. The core conference will occur from the 20th through the
22nd.


*WMF Research Showcase*

On Wednesday, the WMF Research Showcase

will include presentations on two subjects that I think will interest a
number of Wikipedians:

1. "The Critical Relationship of Volunteer Created Wikipedia Content to
Large-Scale Online Communities"

2. "The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System, a Closer Look"




*Photography*
As often happens, Wikimedia Commons contributors have selected some great
pictures of the day for this month
. Here are a few
examples:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lynx_lynx_-_05.jpg
2.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mezquita_de_Agha_Bozorg,_Kashan,_Ir%C3%A1n,_2016-09-19,_DD_81.jpg
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soyuz_TMA-13_Edit.jpg
4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rho_Ophiucus_Widefield.jpg
5.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indosylvirana_urbis-Kadavoor-2017-05-05-001.jpg
6.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Castillo_de_Zafra,_Campillo_de_Due%C3%B1as,_Guadalajara,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2017-01-04,_DD_41-46_PAN.jpg
7
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cirrus_front_over_Austnesfjorden,_Austv%C3%A5g%C3%B8ya,_Lofoten,_Norway,_2015_April.jpg
8
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingsallee_Tulpenbl%C3%BCte_2010_(1).jpg


What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
language

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

[Anthony Cole]

Is someone from WMF monitoring wikimedia-l and notifying relevant employees
when an issue arises under their remit? This issue - big companies using
our writing without attribution and like-licensing - has been hanging with
no word from the WMF for six months.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March:
>
> "In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue Office,
> Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t constitute any
> sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an API
> to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s all
> well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter, the
> CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships ... *Smart
> assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it comes to
> leveraging that information base.*"[1]
>
> That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief Revenue
> Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give back." I
> want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their obligation to
> meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights attached.
> If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not
> breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is based
> on.
>
> 1.https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that-
> use-wikipedia-giving-back/
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:47 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes of course the WMF can contact those who are detected reusing our
>> content without fully complying with licenses and encourage them to
>> comply.
>>
>> If a case were to go to court it would need to have one or more
>> contributors who were willing to cooperate with WMF legal in the case. But
>> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to do so.
>>
>> As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons:
>>
>> Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing requires a
>> crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a community. The
>> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new wikimedians,
>> and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is for
>> them
>> to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our content
>> being used without attribution is an existential threat to the project and
>> hence to the WMF.
>>
>> Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations. For
>> some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally I feel
>> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed to
>> me.
>> If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer contributions as
>> effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our
>> community. I'm also active on another site where every member regularly
>> gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would happen
>> if
>> it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued participation.
>>
>> Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by asking
>> for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution back
>> to
>> Wikipedia etc tackles the existential threat of other sites treating
>> wikipedia et al as CC0.
>>
>>
>> WSC
>>
>> On 5 April 2018 at 08:04, 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
>> > > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share
>> alike"
>> > > and rely on WMF to preserve those rights.
>> >
>> > Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like yourself)
>> > are the ones who own copyright to the articles - the WMF doesn't. Unless
>> > you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other license
>> > enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action for
>> > you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.)
>> >
>> > -- Legoktm
>> >
>> >
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/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

[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
> ,
> > >> 
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
> > ---
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] proposal: branded reader-pens in the store

[James Salsman]

I propose https://store.wikimedia.org/collections/accessories

include http://www.ectaco.com/cpen-30/

branded with the Wikimedia logo.

Best regards,
Jim

___
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

[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,
> >> 
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
> ---
> 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,
> 
___
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

[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,
>> 
> ___
> 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, 


---
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, 

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,
> 
___
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, 


---
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, 

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,
> 
>
> ___
> 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,
> 

-- 
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, 


---
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, 

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, 
> 

___
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, 


---
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, 

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, 


---
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, 

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,
> 
>
> ___
> 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

[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,
> 
>
> ___
> 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,
> 

-- 
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

[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, 
> 

___
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

[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,