Nice picture of a gavel but they aren't used in Irish (or British) courts. Please don't reinforce the US view that judges have to have gavels. It's as wrong as using File:Legal wigs today.jpg to represent a judge in the US. Nthep (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The San Francisco Examiner asks a couple of questions that I'm still trying to find the answer to. Right there in the headline: What does the CEO who oversees Wikipedia do? And another one: Why does Wikipedia have banners on its website asking people to give money? Smallbones' comment that The 14 questions seem very basic is accurate. Perhaps this is all Iskander is qualified to talk about. So far as I can see, she's got no significant history in any Wikimedia project. As for Tom Bower, it's quite weird that a professional unauthorised biographer had someone who closely monitored his article and removed offensive material. Someone needs to do the same for his largely fictional biography of Jeremy Corbyn. I guess he can dish it out but he can't take it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found my email exchange with Bower very strange, and I may pursue this further in The Signpost once I've done all the required due-diligence (e.g. BLP on 2 sides) and I'm comfortable publishing it. But it may be too big for me. I do think you misinterpreted my sentence there though, it should be something like "Bower knows a "Person A" who monitors Person A's Wikipedia article and removes material that is offensive to Person A." Smallbones(smalltalk)22:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps this is all Iskander is qualified to talk about. So far as I can see, she's got no significant history in any Wikimedia project." More likely this is all the interviewer was qualified to ask about. Wikipedia (and Wikimedia projects) are notoriously misunderstood by the general public, and unless an interview has been a member of the community themselves, all the questions they'll have will be very basic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}21:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dived into the Dalmatian benches snippet, and while it was amusing enough on it's own, I fail to see why it is in the signpost. Connecting a bunch of old man discussing everything under the sun, to WP having articles about everything under the sun, is such an extreme overreach it's liable to lead to SpaghettificationDutchy45 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm to blame, of course. The first thing that attracted me was the title - there is no Dalmatian Wikipedia, Croatian yes, Dalmatian no. It took me awhile to get the under the sun analogy, but once I got it I saw the history of knowledge on a whole new timeline: bench=>library=>Wikipedia and started thinking of benches in small towns I knew as a kid. In short, I like this column to have something for everybody to stretch their minds, it's a good example of silly season, and glad you liked it enough to comment. Yes, it was long on text and seemingly thin on facts - but actually there were tons of facts - just not the type of facts that you usually see. Enjoy your summer! Smallbones(smalltalk)02:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I really enjoyed reading that piece the other day. And there are indeed parallels to be drawn between Wikipedia and the Dalmatian benches (including the preponderance of men!).
This may sound (or even be ...) trite, but I sometimes think of Wikipedia as a sort of public playground for adults. The attraction of the facilities available here is in some way comparable to that a shining climbing frame in a municipal park exerts on a passing kid – except that the "playbor" here is channelled in such a way as to produce something of value.
A municipal bench is quite similar to a playground (the same goes for a other social media sites of course), and as the article argues, it too produces a reservoir of knowledge that is useful to the community.
In short, Russia has nothing to gain from blocking Wikipedia. Nyet. If Wikipedia is banned in Russia, then those Russians who oppose the invasion of Ukraine will lose another relatively independent source for information about the invasion. And that will make Russia's propaganda efforts more effective. Tube·of·Light04:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty misleading language re Grant Shapps - he was never a serious contender, and I don't remember seeing the Wikipedia stuff mentioned in the media at all (as opposed to by me to friends, again). Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading this article, I notice PM Johnson is described as "fuzzy-headed". Is that a mistake for "fuzzy-haired"? Or is this a characteristic I haven't read about? (As an aside, his hair is still better than the previous US President's.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there are indeed parallels to be drawn between Wikipedia and the Dalmatian benches (including the preponderance of men!).
← Back to In the media