Knowledgekid87 (talk | contribs) |
Factchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
: It's [[Lakh|standard usage of commas]] in India. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 20:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC) |
: It's [[Lakh|standard usage of commas]] in India. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 20:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Well it certainly wont be "free" by any means, those "professionals" are either written as they are told or they get imprisoned for life. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 03:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC) |
::Well it certainly wont be "free" by any means, those "professionals" are either written as they are told or they get imprisoned for life. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 03:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Should the [[Trump–Russia dossier]] article allow any space for the POV that Trump might not have conspired with the Russians? == |
|||
Apologies if I'm being presumptuous by posting a content dispute on your talk page. |
|||
The article on the Christopher Steele dossier predictably gives a lot of space to people opining on the various claims made. Since there are plenty of published viewpoints in reputable outlets disputing the claim that Trump colluded with the Russians, shouldn't some of them be mentioned? In my opinion, allowing a lot of material that presumes or implies Trump guilt, without anything in response except some odd statements from Trump's lawyer, tends to present a picture of guilt that I don't think is warranted under NPOV. |
|||
Separately, this same article includes extremely lengthy quotations of numerous accusations from the dossier, slathered with "citations" to (1) low-quality partisan blogs; (2) an inexperienced "political writer" for Business Insider, a business-focused website founded in 2009; and (3) unusually sensationalist news coverage by a couple ''Guardian'' writers that doesn't seem to be buttressed by any serious discussion in American sources. |
|||
Should the dossier allegations be laundy-listed in great detail simply because they exist, or is this a gray area wherein [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] counsels us to limit our discussion to claims that have been discussed or at least ''repeated'' in multiple high-quality sources? If some of the more serious accusations—Trump paid the Russians to hack the DNC, it was Carter Page's idea to dump the documents to Wikileaks, the "golden showers" tape was motivated by Trump's hate of Obama, etc.—are not discussed ''anywhere'' but partisan blogs, are they really encyclopedic material? |
|||
Cheers. [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 03:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:43, 13 April 2018
Is this a political issue that we want to take a stand on?
I am generally opposed to Wikipedia taking a stand on political issues, but I make an exception when something has an effect on us as an encyclopedia. Is the following such a case?
- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/what-if-elsevier-and-researchers-quit-playing-hide-and-seek
- https://torrentfreak.com/publisher-gets-carte-blanche-to-seize-new-sci-hub-domains-180410/
- Sci-Hub
- https://archive.org/download/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008.pdf
--Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think deliberately abetting copyright infringement is the place for Wikipedia to make a political point, no. I don't think an attempt to change copyright law here would be useful, either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- The first link (EFF) is about supporting Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), which is just saying that research supported by US taxpayers should be published openly so that US taxpayers (and the rest of the world) can access the results. That's not "abetting copyright infringement." I've never understood what Elsevier and the other journal publishers do to justify the large profits they take out of academic publishing. They don't do the editing or reviewing. I support FASTR and think Wikipedia and the WMF have good reason to support open publishing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- We have an article on this: Rent-seeking. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- The first link (EFF) is about supporting Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), which is just saying that research supported by US taxpayers should be published openly so that US taxpayers (and the rest of the world) can access the results. That's not "abetting copyright infringement." I've never understood what Elsevier and the other journal publishers do to justify the large profits they take out of academic publishing. They don't do the editing or reviewing. I support FASTR and think Wikipedia and the WMF have good reason to support open publishing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Related: The EU's latest copyright proposal is so bad, it even outlaws Creative Commons licenses.
"...rightsholders will not be able to waive the right to be compensated under the Link Tax. That means that European creators -- who've released hundreds of millions of works under Creative Commons licenses that allow for free sharing without fee or permission -- will no longer be able to choose the terms of a Creative Commons license; the inalienable, unwaivable right to collect rent any time someone links to your creations will invalidate the core clause in these licenses."
--Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
China to rival Wikipedia with own version of online encyclopedia
"Unlike Wikipedia, the new encyclopedia project, which was approved in 2011, will be entirely written and edited by professionals. Wikipedia can be written and edited by laymen. Over 20,000 scholars and academics have been enlisted by China to roll out the project, which aims to have more than 3,00,000 entries, when it launches in 2018, according to AFP."[1]
That "3,00,000 entries" look like a typo to me... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's standard usage of commas in India. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well it certainly wont be "free" by any means, those "professionals" are either written as they are told or they get imprisoned for life. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Should the Trump–Russia dossier article allow any space for the POV that Trump might not have conspired with the Russians?
Apologies if I'm being presumptuous by posting a content dispute on your talk page.
The article on the Christopher Steele dossier predictably gives a lot of space to people opining on the various claims made. Since there are plenty of published viewpoints in reputable outlets disputing the claim that Trump colluded with the Russians, shouldn't some of them be mentioned? In my opinion, allowing a lot of material that presumes or implies Trump guilt, without anything in response except some odd statements from Trump's lawyer, tends to present a picture of guilt that I don't think is warranted under NPOV.
Separately, this same article includes extremely lengthy quotations of numerous accusations from the dossier, slathered with "citations" to (1) low-quality partisan blogs; (2) an inexperienced "political writer" for Business Insider, a business-focused website founded in 2009; and (3) unusually sensationalist news coverage by a couple Guardian writers that doesn't seem to be buttressed by any serious discussion in American sources.
Should the dossier allegations be laundy-listed in great detail simply because they exist, or is this a gray area wherein WP:EXCEPTIONAL counsels us to limit our discussion to claims that have been discussed or at least repeated in multiple high-quality sources? If some of the more serious accusations—Trump paid the Russians to hack the DNC, it was Carter Page's idea to dump the documents to Wikileaks, the "golden showers" tape was motivated by Trump's hate of Obama, etc.—are not discussed anywhere but partisan blogs, are they really encyclopedic material?
Cheers. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)