I think you're indulging in the common tendency of inferring that if WMF
did not do something a decade ago that it had the legal right to do, it
follows that it lacked the moral courage to do that thing (or else that it
had moral courage then but lacks it now--the moral-judgment fantasy can run
in
Hoi,
There were Wikipedias closed in the past before the recent issue at the
Croation Wikipedia because of content, language. It is not only recent, it
is more pronounced but not a shift
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 at 19:00, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Well, that was the difference I wa
Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really thinking
of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual
integrity of the *encyclopedic* content, hiring staff to address
"misleading content", "disin
Andreas Kolbe writes:
> It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com)
> quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues
> related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
>
> That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but s
