Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-04-12/News and notes

← Back to News and notes

Discuss this story

• Nice hearing about the Bibliothèque nationale collaboration. I wonder if English language texts will also be included. Gallica has some books I'd like to look at, but are hard to search through. It will be some time, I'm sure, for all these to proofread; Wikisource could always do with more volunteers. —innotata 00:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The judge in the Wikipedia.de case probably looked up the applicable legal precedents on Wikipedia.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Flagged revisions WP.de: Is the excerpt of the contract translated? "Evolution of the number of page (semi-)protection." Plural required. This one doesn't work either: "Detailed study of the time to accept or reject a certain anonymous revision [...]."
• Introductory WP vid: It's good, but two minor issues: the narration might have been just a little less rushed, even if it meant omitting a couple of sentences. And next time, please provide at least one example on such a vid that is not US-centric. Tony (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The excerpt of the contract is taken verbatim [slightly abridged as marked] from Daniel Kinzler's comment on the blog post. I would assume the contract to be in English, as Wikimedia Deutschland and the Spanish researchers can't be expected to be both fluent in either German or Spanish.

By the way, an interesting aspect of the court case which I didn't get around to write up is that the plaintiff also made a (flawed) argument based on flagged (sighted) revisions. He argued that it was impossible for "simple" users to change content unless the change was sighted by "higher rank" users, which he somehow tried to associate with Wikimedia.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• An article on vaccination isn't US-centric, is it? Anyway, I think it was a good video overall, but the example used for presenting the "other side" of a dispute was really bad. "Critics claim that vaccinations have never benefited public health" is weasel-worded and patently untrue to boot; I suspect it would be undue weight to give such a view even that one sentence in the Vaccination article. Powers ^T 19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think the widespread but mostly ill-founded distrust of vaccinations deserves a mention in the article. 20:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, certainly (it's extensively covered in a subarticle, vaccine controversy). But the statement as spoken in the video is not suitable at all. No one can seriously and credibly make such a claim, not even critics of widespread vaccination. Powers ^T 11:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)