Wikipedia Sucks!

Another article was published today about how some books are available to read through the Wikipedia citations.

This article focuses on internet archive and of course they aren't the only source of scanned books. Wikisource also has a lot, of course a lot of those need to be cleaned up.

One problem I see here is that not all the books seem to be freely distributable, so it might put the WMF on a slippery slope of allowing copywritten information to be distributed through their sites without paying the authors or publishers, potentially costing the authors and publishers money.

Here's the link: https://betanews.com/2019/10/29/you-can-now-read-cited-books-directly-through-wikipedia/

What a load of bollocks. Do you have the first clue what you are talking about? How on fucking Earth is what that article describes, the transmission of books through WMF sites?

https://www.wired.com/story/internet-archive-wikipedia-more-reliable/

And remember: the Archive does not save Wikipedia page snapshots, because the Wikinits don't want them saved. So they can pull dirty tricks without being caught.

Edit: Paywalled article. Archive: http://archive.is/xiKyk or disable JavaScript.

ericbarbour wrote:https://www.wired.com/story/internet-archive-wikipedia-more-reliable/

And remember: the Archive does not save Wikipedia page snapshots, because the Wikinits don't want them saved. So they can pull dirty tricks without being caught.

Yeah it makes revel pointless if IA is archiving the edits. It also makes the internet less reliable by not archiving them because not Wikipedia and google can control ownership of the I formation and even the information itself. People are already noting the heavy biases in Wikipedia and it's only going to get worse.

Jesus, what a thick bastard you really are. You haven't even noticed this is the same story you posted a few days ago!

Kumioko wrote:Yeah it makes revel pointless if IA is archiving the edits.

No it doesn't. Not even close. Do you even know how this shit works?

Kumioko wrote:It also makes the internet less reliable by not archiving them because not Wikipedia and google can control ownership of the I formation and even the information itself.

On What planet is an internet with Wikipedia on it reliable in first place, you utter gimp? And as was obvious to anyone who looks, this particular initiative is about cutting Google out of the loop.

Kumioko wrote:People are already noting the heavy biases in Wikipedia and it's only going to get worse.

The fuck has this got to do with archiving? And people have been noting it for years, you dumb bastard.

Fucking hell. Serious critic? Serious mental patient more like.