NewYorkBrad takes aim at the developers

[Boink Boink]

NewYorkBrad has revived his moribund blog to take issue with the Mobile site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newy ... or_action?

He claims he was recently at a group dinner with friends, "a dozen intelligent, well-read people", people who apparently don't know he has any connection to Wikipedia. They apparently know what Wikipedia is and occasionally use it as part of their "daily lives".

As Brad tells it, a question came up, a question Brad doesn't describe, one of them Googled it. Persuaded by the fact Wikipedia was the top result, as morons do, they clicked on it. According to Brad, they found the answer they were seeking in the introduction of the article. Brad does not identify what the article was, or how his friends knew it was the right answer.

He goes on to explain his surprise that his friend had no idea that all they had done was read the introduction. They apparently didn't know that they could click the sub-sections in Mobile View and get more detailed information. And they definitely didn't know about the link to Desktop View.

The way Brad tells it, they were AMAZED. And he was dismayed.

it made me laugh for several reasons, mainly because Brad clearly lacks the lawyerly training to see this how a real lawyer would see it. All he has done with this experience, is ask whether or not more bureaucracy would help.

Here's what a lawyer would have to say about this....

* You claim you have friends who don't know you are the Wikipedia Chief Justice? Do you think this is credible? Do they never Google your name?

* Why have you not identified the question or the Wikipedia article you claim answered it? (the blog commentary petered out when an WMF staffer asked this very question, albeit not for the same reason)

* You claim your friends are intelligent and well read, and they know what Wikipedia is. You claim that they have used the site occasionally, but were only ever apparently finding the answers they sought from article introductions. How can this possibly be, when Wikipedia's legal contract makes it clear that it is readers responsibility to verify for themselves that information gleaned from Wikipedia is correct, but it is Wikipedia editorial policy that this would typically not be possible simply from an article introduction (due to the lack of references)? Did you explain this to your friends, or are they still entirely ignorant of this importance element of sensible Wikipedia usage? The most sensible usage being to simply not use it.

* More broadly, if your friends really are smart and well read, which do you think better explains that in their daily usage of Wikipedia, they were apparently never all that worried by the absence of a list of references in any given article? They were misled by Wikipedia calling itself an "encyclopedia" and assumed all information is vetted by "editors" and presented as trustworthy? Or that they aren't very smart at all, and don't actually have the first clue what Wikipedia is?

* How old are your friends? Bearing in mind anyone who has been using Wikipedia for more than ten years probable does remember what Wikipedia looked like in Desktop view, even if they mistakenly assumed Mobile view had replaced it (inexplicably dumping article sections and references/external links In the process)

In short, Brad, are you making up stories to further the division between the professional staff of Wikipedia, and the volunteers of Wikipedia? Or are you blindly ignoring the glaring disparity between what you know people use Wikipedia for and think it is, and what you as an insider knows, things even the self admitted "non-technically oriented user" knows?I

Do you feel in any way guilty, as a lawyer, that your first instinct on learning that your friends are being misled by myths and misconceptions of what Wikipedia is, probably on a fundamental level, the first and indeed only thing you thought needed to be asked of the Foundation, is could you make use of yet another channel to advise on device display matters.

Unless you propose making the disclaimer very large and ideally an opt in, I say you should be held jointly liable as a key representative of this cult for the potentially widespread public deception that you have inadvertently described. Unless of course, you made the whole thing up.

[ericbarbour]

He claims he was recently at a group dinner with friends, "a dozen intelligent, well-read people", people who apparently don't know he has any connection to Wikipedia. They apparently know what Wikipedia is and occasionally use it as part of their "daily lives".
As Brad tells it, a question came up, a question Brad doesn't describe, one of them Googled it. Persuaded by the fact Wikipedia was the top result, as morons do, they clicked on it. According to Brad, they found the answer they were seeking in the introduction of the article. Brad does not identify what the article was, or how his friends knew it was the right answer.
He goes on to explain his surprise that his friend had no idea that all they had done was read the introduction. They apparently didn't know that they could click the sub-sections in Mobile View and get more detailed information. And they definitely didn't know about the link to Desktop View.
The way Brad tells it, they were AMAZED. And he was dismayed.
it made me laugh for several reasons, mainly because Brad clearly lacks the lawyerly training to see this how a real lawyer would see it. All he has done with this experience, is ask whether or not more bureaucracy would help.

That's Wikipedia. The "info" site for the terminally clueless. And the bureaucracy for the pettiest bureacrats on the internet.

Always remember: WP would have failed long ago if not for Google (the largest advertising company the world has ever seen) automatically sending them billions of referrals every month. Plus funding and other support. The two monsters are joined at the hip. Why isn't Brad complaining about THAT?

[wexter]

According to Brad, they found the answer they were seeking in the introduction of the article....

If what I've described is a typical experience, then a lot of our content is not reaching a lot of our readers.

NYBrad is correct in part.
--Today, The majority of folks only want/need/willing to see read or process a concise synopsis
--The quality of lead paragraphs on Wikipedia is questionable and inconsistent - the bodies of the articles are far worse.

Wikipedia is Obsolete

If you only have time for a paragraph here are some comparisons.

Mother Teresa, also known as Saint Teresa of Calcutta, was a Catholic nun and humanitarian who dedicated her life to serving the poor and destitute. She founded the Missionaries of Charity, a religious congregation that provides assistance to the sick, orphaned, and dying in over 130 countries. Mother Teresa's selfless acts of kindness and compassion earned her global recognition and she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. Her legacy continues to inspire countless individuals to work towards alleviating poverty and promoting love and care for others. - Chat GPT

vs

Mary Teresa Bojaxhiu MC (pronounced [bɔjaˈdʒiu]; 26 August 1910 – 5 September 1997), better known as Mother Teresa,[pron 1] was an Albanian-Indian Catholic nun and the founder of the Missionaries of Charity. She was born Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu[pron 2] in Skopje, part of the Ottoman Empire at the time. At the age of 18, she moved to Ireland and then to India, where she lived most of her life. On 4 September 2016, she was canonised as Saint Teresa of Calcutta. The anniversary of her death, 5 September, is her feast day. - Wikipedia

Wikipedia 0 - Chatgpt 1

---

Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian author, podcaster, and internet personality who gained prominence for his involvement in philosophical and political discussions. He rose to prominence through his YouTube channel and podcast, where he explored a wide range of topics including ethics, politics, and personal relationships. Molyneux developed a following for his strong advocacy of libertarian principles and his controversial views on subjects such as race and IQ. While some people appreciate his ideas and see him as a provocative thinker, others criticize him for spreading pseudoscience and engaging in inflammatory rhetoric. Molyneux's work and ideas have generated significant debate and discussion within online communities. ChatGPT

vs

Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is an Irish-born Canadian far-right white nationalist[2][3][4][5][6] podcaster who promotes conspiracy theories, white supremacy,[7][8] scientific racism, men's rights, and racist views.[15] He is the founder of the Freedomain Radio website.[1] As of September 2020, Molyneux has been permanently banned or suspended from PayPal, Mailchimp, YouTube, and SoundCloud, all for violating hate speech policies.[16][17][18][19][20]

Wikipedia 0 - Chatgtp 2

Wikipedia belies logic, it has some stated polices but it lacks standardization and review. People can write articles on Wikipedia but on balance the articles are not readable.

To structure an introductory paragraph effectively, follow a three-part framework. Start by stating the premise or topic sentence, which introduces the main idea of the paragraph. Then, support the premise with relevant main points or evidence, each in its own separate sentence or group of sentences. Finally, conclude the paragraph by summarizing the main points and reinforcing the connection to the overall argument or topic. This structure helps maintain clarity and coherence, guiding readers through your ideas in a logical and organized manner. ChatGPT

vs

In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.

The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read.[A] It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ad_section

ChatGPT3 - Wikipedia edited by losers - Wikipedia is all over the map

Eric; I think Google knows Wikipedia is done for.

"Always remember: WP would have failed long ago if not for Google (the largest advertising company the world has ever seen) automatically sending them billions of referrals every month. Plus funding and other support. The two monsters are joined at the hip. Why isn't Brad complaining about THAT?" Eric B.