NewYorkBrad takes aim at the developers
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2023 7:50 pm
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.
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.