akolbe

40 ms·

481.
by akolbe 4y ago
What always does my head in here is Wikipedia's claim or requirement to present a "Neutral Point of View". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie... Theoretically, this would mean &
482.
by akolbe 4y ago
The Latin is: Aliter dulcia: siligineos rasos frangis, et buccellas maiores facies. in lacte infundis, frigis [et] in oleo, mel superfundis et inferes. So there is no mention of the eggs, but the thing does have some resemblance to French t
483.
by akolbe 4y ago
It's of little help to you if it is corrected a day or decade after you read the article. The thing to remember is to check the cited sources whenever the information is remotely important to you. See https://www.theregister
484.
by akolbe 4y ago
The website reporting this is affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Tone But the story is perfectly real: the link to the community discussion on Wikipedia checks out. Chinese
485.
by akolbe 4y ago
I wouldn't say that what happened at Scots Wikipedia is a "natural process". It's one single person lacking language knowledge being given a truly inordinate amount of influence.
486.
The greatest movie that never was(dailydot.com)
4 points by akolbe 4y ago|1 comments
487.
by akolbe 4y ago
Kozierok's Law accounts for much of this: "The apparent accuracy of a Wikipedia article is inversely proportional to the depth of the reader's knowledge of the topic."
488.
by akolbe 4y ago
Media reporting on Wikipedia (with few exceptions, like Stephen Harrison on Slate) generally consists in regurgitating Wikimedia press releases. So issues like Wikimedia's dodgy fundraising practices that could do with investigative jo
489.
by akolbe 4y ago
Being freely licensed, the Wikipedia corpus is widely used as input for AI tools such as machine translation. https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/scots_wikipedia_fake/
490.
by akolbe 4y ago
Which version of Wikipedia? Do you have a link? (Edit:) Ah, never mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarab_people
491.
by akolbe 4y ago
It's worth noting that sixthtone is a Chinese state-affiliated website. But the link to the community investigation on Chinese Wikipedia bears them out.
492.
by akolbe 4y ago
This sort of thing has happened on English Wikipedia as well. Remember the Bicholim conflict? https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/wikipedia-bicholim-conflict... Or the Amelia Bedelia hoax? https://www.dailydot.
493.
by akolbe 4y ago
I don't know Wikiversity very well. My impression is that it is a mixture of cranks and actual academics. Neither of them would want a Wikimedia-appointed expert come and revise their stuff. Also, the Foundation will not pay experts to
494.
by akolbe 4y ago
It's certainly the case that the community has less and less of a say. Decisions are increasingly made behind closed doors or by committees rather than on Wikipedia itself. Professional bureaucrats doing their thing. I have to admit th
495.
by akolbe 4y ago
As for Wikibooks and Wikiversity, I think it's because the quality content just isn't there. Wikipedia works reasonaby well with volunteer editors because of the requirement to cite published sources. Without that constraint, cont
496.
by akolbe 4y ago
It's a good question. They have spent half a billion dollars during the past five years, and have almost another half billion in reserves. The fundraising seems to have become an end in itself, just because they can. They keep talking
497.
by akolbe 4y ago
It's that the fundraising is manipulative – it creates an impression of a cash-strapped organisation that is struggling to keep Wikipedia up and running when they're richer than ever. Meanwhile, Wikipedia volunteers – all of Wikip
498.
by akolbe 4y ago
That article actually mentions that he's blind from cataracts and has lost his sense of smell. Clearly, some aging has taken place ... he would be unable to survive in the wild now.
499.
by akolbe 4y ago
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial... for the development of revenue/expenses over time.
500.
by akolbe 4y ago
People imagine Wikipedia's financial situation to be the exact opposite of what it actually is.
501.
“Wikipedia's independence” or “Wikimedia's pile of dosh”?(en.wikipedia.org)
21 points by akolbe 4y ago|13 comments
502.
by akolbe 4y ago
I think there are different schools of thought. Some people prefer putting a "citation needed" template, others like this author are more conservative, remove things in the first instance and then possibly look for any good source
503.
Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?(en.wikipedia.org)
2 points by akolbe 4y ago|2 comments
504.
by akolbe 4y ago
As is clear from internal documents, the Wikimedia Foundation had hoped to have more customers than Google on board by now: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimed... "Although we successfully
505.
Google is paying the Wikimedia Foundation for better access to information(theverge.com)
3 points by akolbe 4y ago|1 comments
506.
by akolbe 4y ago
The figures in that video are a little out of date. The Wikimedia Foundation last reported assets of $231 million, along with an additional $100+ million in its Endowment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundat
507.
Should You Donate to Wikipedia?(youtube.com)
4 points by akolbe 4y ago|1 comments
508.
by akolbe 4y ago
Also worth noting that people at the Internet Archive are paid far less than what people at Wikimedia Foundation are paid. Internet Archive (2019 figures): https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/9
509.
by akolbe 4y ago
They're certainly more in need of the money and are actually vital to Wikipedia, ensuring continued access to cited sources that are no longer online for whatever reason.
510.
by akolbe 4y ago
Speaking of the Wikipedia fundraising banners ... It's worth mentioning here that in 2020/2021, Wikimedia took about $90 million more than it spent – the Wikimedia Foundation's net assets increased by over $50 million to $2

More ›