Bloomberg: Wikipedia blocks some users from editing its 'recession' page

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 395 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Bloomberg: Wikipedia blocks some users from editing its 'recession' page

Post by Strelnikov » Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:59 pm

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ssion-page
Wikipedia is changing editing rules on its “Recession” page after a fierce battle between users over its precise definition.

Starting on Wednesday, updates from unregistered users or new accounts will have to be reviewed and accepted by an editor before being visible to most readers. The move comes after the entry received hundreds of edits that violated Wikipedia policies, urging editors to make the page “semi-protected,” restricting revisions.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Bloomberg: Wikipedia blocks some users from editing its 'recession' page

Post by wexter » Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:03 pm

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2512

Evidently a Musk amplified edit war with tens of thousands of edits and deletions.
Musk sent a nasty tweet in the direction of Jimbo

"Wikipedia is losing its objectivity @jimmy_wales," tweeted Musk
Perhaps someone needs to educate Musk because his tweet is delusional, Wikipedia hosted porn at one point (bomis) but never had objectivity.


As to Musk “A man with priorities so far out of whack doesn’t deserve such a fine automobile.” Ferris Bueller


Musk Amplified tweeting
https://nypost.com/2022/07/29/elon-musk ... sion-page/

What is a recession? Wikipedia can't decide
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/29/11145999 ... sion-edits

Elon Musk Takes on a Beleaguered Icon
Wikipedia is the subject of much criticism following a controversial change.
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/el ... dia-debate

Down with new users;
https://fortune.com/2022/07/29/wikipedi ... new-users/

Wikipedia Attempts To Change The Definition Of ‘Recession’ 41 Times
https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/28/wiki ... recession/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beland#About_me

There is even a FAQ to new users by Berland

I read online that Wikipedia changed the definition of a recession.
Okay, so what, someone tried to remove it?
And now it's locked?
What's the deal with there being a million edits on this page in one day?
How do I see what edits have been made to an article?
Why are there all these administrators saying weird stuff here?
Why is Wikipedia paying you to do this stuff?
Okay, well, I have some stuff I want to say.

IMHO populism and pander, by the left and the right alike, does not end well.

1) Wikipedia is getting tons of bad press 2) Google might be skull raped in discovery

Court Rejects Google’s Attempt to Dismiss Rumble’s Antitrust Lawsuit, Ensuring Vast Discovery
https://scheerpost.com/2022/07/30/court ... discovery/

And evidently Wikipedia might be addling and confusing the wheels of justice

https://news.mit.edu/2022/study-finds-w ... avior-0727

Mixed appraisals of one of the internet’s major resources, Wikipedia, are reflected in the slightly dystopian article “List of Wikipedia Scandals.” Yet billions of users routinely flock to the online, anonymously editable, encyclopedic knowledge bank for just about everything. How this unauthoritative source influences our discourse and decisions is hard to reliably trace. But a new study attempts to measure how knowledge gleaned from Wikipedia may play out in one specific realm: the courts.

A team of researchers led by Neil Thompson, a research scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), recently came up with a friendly experiment: creating new legal Wikipedia articles to examine how they affect the legal decisions of judges. They set off by developing over 150 new Wikipedia articles on Irish Supreme Court decisions, written by law students. Half of these were randomly chosen to be uploaded online, where they could be used by judges, clerks, lawyers, and so on — the “treatment” group. The other half were kept offline, and this second group of cases provided the counterfactual basis of what would happen to a case absent a Wikipedia article about it (the “control”). They then looked at two measures: whether the cases were more likely to be cited as precedents by subsequent judicial decisions, and whether the argumentation in court judgments echoed the linguistic content of the new Wikipedia pages.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Bloomberg: Wikipedia blocks some users from editing its 'recession' page

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:28 am

wexter wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:03 pm
1) Wikipedia is getting tons of bad press

They have been getting bad press constantly since 2005. And it had very little effect on the "cult".
2) Google might be skull raped in discovery
Court Rejects Google’s Attempt to Dismiss Rumble’s Antitrust Lawsuit, Ensuring Vast Discovery
Google skull-rapes itself every day. They are the new IBM, the new Exxon. No empire that huge (yet insane) can survive.

User avatar
Cla68
Sucks
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:18 pm
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Bloomberg: Wikipedia blocks some users from editing its 'recession' page

Post by Cla68 » Mon Aug 08, 2022 8:53 pm

wexter wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:03 pm
Evidently a Musk amplified edit war with tens of thousands of edits and deletions.
Musk sent a nasty tweet in the direction of Jimbo

"Wikipedia is losing its objectivity @jimmy_wales," tweeted Musk
Perhaps someone needs to educate Musk because his tweet is delusional, Wikipedia hosted porn at one point (bomis) but never had objectivity.
Musk is a fairly smart guy so he knew the best way to get a defensive response from Jimbo was to cast aspersions on his project's "objectivity." If Wikipedia loses its plausible denial over being biased from top to bottom, the entire thing is done and Jimbo loses some of his social status, which is all he cares about.

Post Reply