Wikipedia (neutral): Difference between revisions

(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 1:

'''See [[Wikipedia]] for the perspective more directly applicable to [[Consumerium]], and why this project can't just "merge with" or always cooperate with that one. The following was GFDL'd at [[Recyclopedia]]:''

'''Wikipedia''' is the only [[GFDL corpus access provider|offering access]] to [[GFDL corpus]] in all languages in which that corpus is written. It has set a [[wikitext standard]] that other [[GFDL]] access and editing services have chosen to meet to facilitate easy text exchange.

'''Wikipedia''' is the only [[GFDL corpus access provider|offering access]] to [[GFDL corpus]] in all languages in which that corpus is written. It has set a [[wikitext standard]] that other [[GFDL]] access and editing services ~~(such as [[Recyclopedia itself]])~~ have chosen to meet to facilitate easy text exchange.

'''Wikipedia''' encourages contribution of [[free content]] articles on any subject, with some [[almanac]]-like and [[gazetteer]]-like information. It claims to be an [[encyclopedia]], however, has none of the standard means of avoiding a [[systemic bias]] or [[validation]] or [[attribution]] such a project would require. It does not even have a chief [[editor]].

Line 11:

Line 9:

== management ==

"Free" from the [[Wikimedia point of view]] means both free to use and free to edit, except for [[trolls]] and others excluded for ~~political~~ reasons~~, of which there are many~~. ''Contact the [[GodKing]] for advice on these criteria. Many [[wiki management]] [[Wikipedia as a bad example|bad examples are drawn from Wikipedia]].'' Some of these problems hamper the corpus itself:

"Free" from the [[Wikimedia point of view]] means both free to use and free to edit, except for [[trolls]] and others excluded for various reasons. ''Contact the [[GodKing]] for advice on these criteria. Many [[wiki management]] [[Wikipedia as a bad example|bad examples are drawn from Wikipedia]].'' Some of these problems hamper the corpus itself:

Wikipedia's [[server log]]s are not available to compile important information regarding [[link]] transit, which articles are most often reached from most others, which would much aid the editing effort. This information ~~is probably withheld because it is useful to [[Bomis.com]] - ''see [[Wikimedia corruption]]'' - and would~~ be useful to other [[search engine]]s.

Wikipedia's [[server log]]s are not available to compile important information regarding [[link]] transit, which articles are most often reached from most others, which would much aid the editing effort. This information could be useful to other [[search engine]]s.

[[Wikipedia factions]] constantly compete the control the presentation of certain topics. Although Wikipedia's [[arbitration]] has dealt remarkably well with subjects like [[abortion]] or [[capitalism]], they deal very poorly with [[Zionism]] or any subject where a [[mechanistic paradigm]] is challenged, e.g. [[immunology]], [[philosophy of mathematics]], [[talent]], [[creativity]], etc. Their [[neutral point of view]] ideology seems to lead strictly to mediocrity on such subjects that rely more on cognitive or spiritual assumptions about the [[human body]], [[human death]], [[killing]], and the dangers of [[Platonist]] views, [[scientism]], and [[technological escalation]]. Almost by definition, "Wikipedians" seem to favour such views.

As evidence, many of their [[software developer]]s abuse their power: "By wrapping up their ability to contribute with their ability to rule, they are made effectively unaccountable." [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer_access]. [[Sysop vigilantiism]] is a related problem. To be fair, some of these issues arise strictly from the project's complexity:

As evidence (''not provided here''), many of their [[software developer]]s abuse their power: "By wrapping up their ability to contribute with their ability to rule, they are made effectively unaccountable." [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer_access]. [[Sysop vigilantiism]] is a related problem. To be fair, some of these issues arise strictly from the project's complexity:

Wikipedia is multilingual, and an [[open content|open-content]], collaboratively developed creation, managed and operated by the ~~[[Wikimedia corruption|~~heavily conflicted]] [[Wikimedia|Wikimedia Foundation]]. As of [[February]] [[2004]], it contains over 210,000 articles in [[English language|English]], and over 280,000 articles in other languages.

Wikipedia is multilingual, and an [[open content|open-content]], collaboratively developed creation, managed and operated by the heavily conflicted [[Wikimedia|Wikimedia Foundation]]. As of [[February]] [[2004]], it contains over 210,000 articles in [[English language|English]], and over 280,000 articles in other languages.

== in violation of GFDL ==

Line 31:

Line 29:

Wikipedia started as an [[English language]] project on [[January 15]], [[2001]]. Later projects were begun to build Wikipedia in other languages. More statistics and executive summaries may be found in the archive of [[Wikipedia:Press_releases|Wikipedia press releases]].

Wikipedia has been in semi-continuous operation since [[January 10]], [[2001]]. There are frequent outages. Downtimes are usually short, but no [[full text search]] has been available for many months - another way that '''Wikipedia''' falls short as an [[encyclopedia]]. See [[History of Wikipedia]] for more.

See [[History of Wikipedia]] for more.

==Antecedents==

Line 115:

Line 113:

A number of sites, such as "4reference.net" and "nationmaster" have used this to [[mirror (computing)|mirror]] or [[fork (software)|fork]] Wikipedia's content. [OpenFacts]

Source : GFDL'd at [[Recyclopedia]]

==External links==

Line 134:

*[http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/03/wikipedia/index.html Aug 2003 CNN Article about Wikipedia]

*[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias] - [[Larry Sanger]]'s response to [[Britannica]]'s decision to charge fee (July 2001).

See [[Wikipedia (from 142 perspective)]] for another perspective, possibly more directly applicable to [[Consumerium]], and why this project can't just "merge with" or always cooperate with that one.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''See [[Wikipedia]] for the perspective more directly applicable to [[Consumerium]], and why this project can't just "merge with" or always cooperate with that one.  The following was GFDL'd at [[Recyclopedia]]:''
+'''Wikipedia''' is the only [[GFDL corpus access provider|offering access]] to [[GFDL corpus]] in all languages in which that corpus is written.  It has set a [[wikitext standard]] that other [[GFDL]] access and editing services have chosen to meet to facilitate easy text exchange.
-'''Wikipedia''' is the only [[GFDL corpus access provider|offering access]] to [[GFDL corpus]] in all languages in which that corpus is written.  It has set a [[wikitext standard]] that other [[GFDL]] access and editing services (such as [[Recyclopedia itself]]) have chosen to meet to facilitate easy text exchange.
 '''Wikipedia''' encourages contribution of [[free content]] articles on any subject, with some [[almanac]]-like and [[gazetteer]]-like information.  It claims to be an [[encyclopedia]], however, has none of the standard means of avoiding a [[systemic bias]] or [[validation]] or [[attribution]] such a project would require.  It does not even have a chief [[editor]].
@@ Line 11: / Line 9: @@
 == management ==
-"Free" from the [[Wikimedia point of view]] means both free to use and free to edit, except for [[trolls]] and others excluded for political reasons, of which there are many.  ''Contact the [[GodKing]] for advice on these criteria.  Many [[wiki management]] [[Wikipedia as a bad example|bad examples are drawn from Wikipedia]].''  Some of these problems hamper the corpus itself:
+"Free" from the [[Wikimedia point of view]] means both free to use and free to edit, except for [[trolls]] and others excluded for various reasons.  ''Contact the [[GodKing]] for advice on these criteria.  Many [[wiki management]] [[Wikipedia as a bad example|bad examples are drawn from Wikipedia]].''  Some of these problems hamper the corpus itself:
-Wikipedia's [[server log]]s are not available to compile important information regarding [[link]] transit, which articles are most often reached from most others, which would much aid the editing effort.  This information is probably withheld because it is useful to [[Bomis.com]] - ''see [[Wikimedia corruption]]'' - and would be useful to other [[search engine]]s.
+Wikipedia's [[server log]]s are not available to compile important information regarding [[link]] transit, which articles are most often reached from most others, which would much aid the editing effort.  This information could be useful to other [[search engine]]s.
 [[Wikipedia factions]] constantly compete the control the presentation of certain topics.  Although Wikipedia's [[arbitration]] has dealt remarkably well with subjects like [[abortion]] or [[capitalism]], they deal very poorly with [[Zionism]] or any subject where a [[mechanistic paradigm]] is challenged, e.g. [[immunology]], [[philosophy of mathematics]], [[talent]], [[creativity]], etc.  Their [[neutral point of view]] ideology seems to lead strictly to mediocrity on such subjects that rely more on cognitive or spiritual assumptions about the [[human body]], [[human death]], [[killing]], and the dangers of [[Platonist]] views, [[scientism]], and [[technological escalation]].  Almost by definition, "Wikipedians" seem to favour such views.
-As evidence, many of their [[software developer]]s abuse their power:  "By wrapping up their ability to contribute with their ability to rule, they are made effectively unaccountable." [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer_access].  [[Sysop vigilantiism]] is a related problem.  To be fair, some of these issues arise strictly from the project's complexity:
+As evidence (''not provided here''), many of their [[software developer]]s abuse their power:  "By wrapping up their ability to contribute with their ability to rule, they are made effectively unaccountable." [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer_access].  [[Sysop vigilantiism]] is a related problem.  To be fair, some of these issues arise strictly from the project's complexity:
-Wikipedia is multilingual, and an [[open content|open-content]], collaboratively developed creation, managed and operated by the [[Wikimedia corruption|heavily conflicted]] [[Wikimedia|Wikimedia Foundation]]. As of [[February]] [[2004]], it contains over 210,000 articles in [[English language|English]], and over 280,000 articles in other languages.
+Wikipedia is multilingual, and an [[open content|open-content]], collaboratively developed creation, managed and operated by the heavily conflicted [[Wikimedia|Wikimedia Foundation]]. As of [[February]] [[2004]], it contains over 210,000 articles in [[English language|English]], and over 280,000 articles in other languages.
 == in violation of GFDL ==
@@ Line 31: / Line 29: @@
 Wikipedia started as an [[English language]] project on [[January 15]], [[2001]]. Later projects were begun to build Wikipedia in other languages.  More statistics and executive summaries may be found in the archive of [[Wikipedia:Press_releases|Wikipedia press releases]].
-Wikipedia has been in semi-continuous operation since [[January 10]], [[2001]].   There are frequent outages.  Downtimes are usually short, but no [[full text search]] has been available for many months - another way that '''Wikipedia''' falls short as an [[encyclopedia]].  See [[History of Wikipedia]] for more.
+See [[History of Wikipedia]] for more.
 ==Antecedents==
@@ Line 115: / Line 113: @@
 A number of sites, such as "4reference.net" and "nationmaster" have used this to [[mirror (computing)|mirror]] or [[fork (software)|fork]] Wikipedia's content. [OpenFacts]
+Source :  GFDL'd at [[Recyclopedia]]
 ==External links==
@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 *[http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/03/wikipedia/index.html Aug 2003 CNN Article about Wikipedia]
 *[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias] - [[Larry Sanger]]'s response to [[Britannica]]'s decision to charge fee (July 2001).
+See [[Wikipedia (from 142 perspective)]] for another perspective, possibly more directly applicable to [[Consumerium]], and why this project can't just "merge with" or always cooperate with that one.