Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Is Wikipedia biased for Israel and against Palestinians? 5

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Wikipedia's pro-Jewish bias has been discussed in Wikipedia-criticism circles for years, but today the Wikipediocracy blog ran a item relating to it that will attract controversy: it proves that English-language Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of Israeli and Jewish subjects, and against Palestinians. And it starts with very disturbing examples — Wikipedia biographies of Israeli and Palestinian children who were killed in the endless civil war. Specifically, articles about Palestinian children who were killed by Israelis are almost guaranteed to be deleted from the "encyclopedia of record", while articles about Israeli children killed by Palestinians receive "special protection"."

Comment: Mr. Streater is just a traffic generator (Score 1) 2

And as said in another thread on Wikipediocracy:
"the WMF is not in the business of providing an educational resource, it simply uses the term as a way of extracting money from the uninformed. That its sole purpose is putting data on screens, and finding ways for people to add more data that it can subsequently put on screens. What the data actually is it cares not. It just cares about getting $50 million a year to junket about." Traffic, and resulting donations, are obviously all the WMF cares about. We should not be "surprised" about outright, successful vandalism and defamation. It makes traffic and traffic fuels the Wikimedia "movement".
To hell with Mr. Streater's reputation. To hell with everyone's reputation. They're "building" an "encyclopedia" here.

+ - Guilt by Wikipedia: how lazy journalists made Joe Streater a basketball villain 2

Submitted by Andreas Kolbe
Andreas Kolbe (2591067) writes "For more than six years, Wikipedia named an innocent man as a key culprit in the 1978/79 Boston College point shaving scandal. The name Joe Streater was inserted into Wikipedia by an anonymous user in August 2008. The unsourced insertion was never challenged or deleted, and over time, Streater became widely associated with the scandal through newspaper and TV reports as well as countless blogs and fan sites, all of which directly or indirectly copied this spurious fact from Wikipedia. Yet research shows that Streater, whose present whereabouts are unknown, did not even play in the 1978/79 season. Before August 2008, his name was never mentioned in connection with the scandal. As journalists have less and less time for in-depth research, more and more of them seem to be relying on Wikipedia instead, and the online encyclopedia is increasingly becoming a vector for the spread of spurious information."

+ - The latest Wikipedia code-word for "dysfunction" is "Superprotection" 3

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "As if the problems brought up during the recent 2014 Wikimania conference weren't enough, now Wikipedia is having an outright revolt by its editor and administrator community, especially on the German-language Wikipedia. A new Wikipediocracy blog post goes into some detail on the story. The WMF, currently awash in cash from its donors, keeps trying to force flawed new software systems onto the community, and they have repeatedly responded very negatively. This time, however, WMF Deputy Director Erik Moeller had the bright idea to create a new level of page protection to prevent the new software from being disabled. "Superprotection" has resulted in an outright revolt on German Wikipedia and subsequent coverage in the German press, plus demands that Moeller, one of Wikipedia's oldest insiders, be removed from his job. And one English Wikipedia insider started a change.org petition demanding the removal of "superprotection"."

Comment: Re:Copyright dispute with Wikipedia (Score 1) 113

by metasonix (#47657291) Attached to: Wikipedia Gets Critical Reception from UK Press at Wikimania 2014
>Personally, I think for 90% of the articles, Wales does a decent job as the final gatekeeper,

Which only indicates that you haven't looked at the actual content of Wikipedia very closely. I have. Yes, there are many good, usable articles on it. There are also millions of "junk" articles, thousands of hoaxes, tens of thousands of people being defamed in their biographies, hundreds of thousands of people glorifying themselves by writing their own bios (against Jimbo's own rule), and various other abuses. Some are repaired quickly, some sit there for years. And there's no way to tell if an article is valid or not, except by checking the references very carefully (which few people do anyway--Wikipedia is a lazy man's reference). Wales does no "gatekeeping" at all, he is purely a figurehead at this point.

What I really don't get: why do people worship him? He's one of the most inadequate leaders of a major online movement I've ever seen.

+ - Jimmy Wales Embarrasses Himself at Wikimania

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "On Sunday the 2014 Wikimania conference in London closed. Wikimania is the major annual event for Wikipedia editors, insiders and WMF employees to meet face-to-face, give presentations and submit papers. Usually they are full of "Wiki-Love" and good feelings; but this year, as the Wikipediocracy blog summarized, Wikipedia and its "god-king" Jimmy Wales came under considerable fire from the UK media — a very unusual occurrence. And much of it was direct criticism of Wales himself, including a very hostile interview by BBC journalist James O'Brien, who had been repeatedly defamed in his Wikipedia biography by persons unknown."

Comment: Not only are there loads of hoaxes on Wikipedia... (Score 2) 189

by metasonix (#47571423) Attached to: An Accidental Wikipedia Hoax
....no one, not even the Wikipedians, has any idea how many there are. No one can even hazard a decent guess, although after 3+ years of heavy study of English Wikipedia and the "people" who run it, I can state with reasonable certainty that there are thousands of hoaxes on it at any given time. They tend to be subtle bits of misinformation, difficult to find and often lasting for many years.

Comment: Not only are there loads of hoaxes on Wikipedia... (Score 1) 5

by metasonix (#47564075) Attached to: "I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax"
....no one, not even the Wikipedians, has any idea how many there are. No one can even hazard a decent guess, although after 3+ years of heavy study of English Wikipedia and the "people" who run it, I can state with reasonable certainty that there are thousands of hoaxes on it at any given time. They tend to be subtle bits of misinformation, difficult to find and often lasting for many years.

+ - "I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax" 5

Submitted by Andreas Kolbe
Andreas Kolbe (2591067) writes "The Daily Dot's EJ Dickson reports how she accidentally discovered that a hoax factoid she added over five years ago as a stoned sophomore to the Wikipedia article on “Amelia Bedelia, the protagonist of the eponymous children’s book series about a ‘literal-minded housekeeper’ who misunderstands her employer’s orders”, had not just remained on Wikipedia all this time, but come to be cited by a Taiwanese English professor, in “innumerable blog posts and book reports”, as well as a book on Jews and Jesus. It's a cautionary tale about the fundamental unreliability of Wikipedia. And as Wikipedia ages, more and more such stories are coming to light."

Comment: this is only a small sample (Score 1) 2

by metasonix (#47499241) Attached to: Pranks, hoaxes, manipulation: Virtual Unreality on Wikipedia
I've estimated that English Wikipedia contains thousands of hoaxes at any given time. Some of them are removed quickly as "vandalism", some of them last for many years. It is simply not possible to make accurate studies of this situation, because the hoaxes are ever-changing, old ones removed while new ones are added.

Part of the perverse subculture of Wikipedia is the absolute, near-religious certainty that Wikipedia does not contain false or malicious information, because it "simply isn't possible". This is the dark and slimy legacy of Jimbo Wales and his early supporters. By and large a very dishonest group. They are simply pathologically incapable of admitting that they are wrong, or that they ever make mistakes.

"If you want to eat hippopatomus, you've got to pay the freight." -- attributed to an IBM guy, about why IBM software uses so much memory

Working...