Mediaboss Marketing

Charles Hoskinson, the founder of 14the largest cryptocurrency by market cap, that has lost 98% of its value since its ATH in January 2018, took to YouTube to complain about getting a fair representation on Wikipedia.

In his video, he talks about the community members having issues with editing the proof-of-stake (PoS) articles on the online encyclopedia. Hoskinson said,

Cardano, in particular, has been having a tremendously difficult time getting a fair representation on Wikipedia. Anything we do whether it be Plutus, the extended UT XL model, Oroboros the Cardano project itself or people affiliated with the project there is broad-scale commercial censorship occurring by the editors at Wikipedia.

Currently, the Wikipedia page says, The article Proof of stake, along with other articles relating to blockchains and cryptocurrencies, is currently subject to active community-authorized general sanctions.

Hoskinson, who also co-founded the second largest network Ethereum, said it is just another example of existential danger to an industry, which is controlled by a few people who are incredibly biased and not accountable to anyone else.

He has been referring here to David Gerard specifically whose anti-crypto behavior Hoskinson said is going on for years, since the Ethereum days.

Hoskinson might be the latest one to complain about the non-coiner but not the only one, as in the past Decred had a similar issue.

Hoskinson says its unfair when they have been mentioned by the US Congress, as the most cited of all the peer views, and historically have had a market cap larger than SpaceX.

While replying to a Twitter user, Hoskinson argues that Cardanos competitors that are much smaller in size, have pages while they are not allowed to have is censorship.

He further said Wikipedia won't explain the standard, but Gerard refuted these claims by saying, The problem is not that nobody told you, it's that you didn't like the answer.

These are comments directly from a Wikipedia editor commercially censoring us. He also wrote an anti-crypto book. But I'm sure he's being fair and balanced about Cardano content, pointed out Hoskinson on Gerards comment that the (crypto) space would best be advanced by not existing, and as such he is warning others about the ridiculous steaming shitpile.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia highlights that individuals with a conflict of interest are strongly advised not to directly edit the article.

View post:
Cardanos Hoskinson Warns About The Unfair Representation on Wikipedia From An Editor - Bitcoin Exchange Guide

A Christchurch man's campaign for Wikipedia to officially adopt the use of macrons in Mori words has been a success.

Axel Wilke proposed Wikipedia change its New Zealand naming conventions, saying the website is "one of the last bastions of macron resistance for place names".

Debates and editing battles have long raged on the popular site for years, with various editors repeatedly adding and removing macrons from words.

Christchurch man Axel Wilke (left) and museum curator Mike Dickison have led the campaign to make the use of macrons official on Wikipedia. Photo / Supplied

"Macrons have been used in Wikipedia for some time: every use of the word "Mori" has its macron, and articles are increasingly adopting macrons in their names . . . But place names have always been a sticking point. For some reason, people feel especially attached to towns and rivers, and resist changing their spelling," Wilke said.

"Wikipedia rules have, for years, stated that place names were 'under discussion', and macrons have not been used in the meantime for place names," Wilke said.

Wikipedia is written by volunteers, with naming conventions discussed and decided on by contributors.

He suggested the naming conventions be amended to include macrons in cases where the New Zealand Geographic Board has adopted them.

Wilke said the decision was finally made by a user in England.

"It may be surprising to some people that I, a non-New Zealander, appear to be deciding this matter," the user wrote.

"This is a red herring. As a discussion closer, my role is not to decide, but to determine what the community has decided in the discussion below.

"I determine this in the way set out at Wikipedia:Closing discussions, and my role is to evaluate what we call the 'consensus', which on Wikipedia is not unanimity but 'rough consensus'."

In the end, 33 editors voted for the adoption of the new guideline, with five against.

"This marks a big change for Wikipedia. The idea was first raised on Wikipedia discussion pages in 2007 with no clear consensus," Wilke said.

In 2018, volunteersengaged in a battleover whether the Kpiti town of Paekkriki should have macrons in its name, with editors repeatedly removing and replacing the macrons from the page.

"It's gratifying to see that after a well-researched proposal was put forward, agreement on macron use for place names has now been achieved."

Originally posted here:
Battle of the macrons: Debate about Mori words on Wikipedia ends - Newstalk ZB

By: Tech Desk | New Delhi | Updated: March 27, 2020 2:32:09 pm Coronavirus related information now available in 9 Indian languages on Wikipedia

Cases of COVID-19 are rising significantly in India with every passing day. In just a week it has crossed the 700 mark and this is worrying the Indian government as well as the citizens. While India is under 21 days lockdown until April 14 people are stuck at home and are completely dependent on the internet, social media and television for information related to coronavirus pandemic.

Sadly, given the current state the internet is flooded with unverified information, fake news, and rumours and finding authentic information is difficult. This is were Wikipedia is playing a big role by informing people with verified information related to coronavirus pandemic. Wikipedia is providing COVID-19 related information in 9 Indian languages including Bangla, Bhojpuri, Hindi, Kannada, Arabic, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned against an infodemic of inaccurate information that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it. This is a monumental challenge that a group of Wikipedia editors is tackling as they add, review, and improve COVID-19 information in English as well as 9 Indian languages.

ALSO READ: This app lets you report coronavirus suspect, find testing labs nearby and more

Given Wikipedia follow an open editing model designed to prevent bias it has partnered with SWASTHA, a branch of another much larger Wikipedia group WikiProject Medicine which includes doctors and experts from around the globe.WikiProject Medicine has so far produced more than 35,000 medical articles across different languages that are monitored by more than 150 editors. With this partnership, Wikipedia aims to make critical coronavirus health information freely accessible to all Indians.

Verifying what is a coronavirus fact versus fiction is a huge job, and we are calling on local universities to help as we increase efforts to translate and review local Indic content about the pandemic, said Abhishek Suryawanshi whos a part of the newly-formed Wikipedia group. Indias volunteer editors have created multiple articles such as Wikipedia article about the coronavirus pandemic in India, across multiple Indian languages. The English Wikipedia article alone has been edited 1,400 times by more than 100 editors.

ALSO READ: Cybersecurity experts come together to fight coronavirus-related hacking

SWASTHA works with Indias National Health Authority and Ministry of Health as well as with international pandemic control experts from Johns Hopkins University in the United States and the World Health Organisation in Switzerland. To produce better results SWASTHA said it requires more help from local partners as the pandemic grew to help them reach local communities.

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Technology News, download Indian Express App.

IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Excerpt from:
Coronavirus updates in Hindi, Bangla, Tamil and 6 more Indian languages on Wikipedia - The Indian Express

Weve all been there. Youre sitting in a class. Your professor wants you to write a paper on the different types of asexual reproduction of the Sanderia malayensis jellyfish or some other arcane drivel. Your first reaction is to hit up Wikipedia. Then comes the kicker. You cant cite Wikipedia. You scowl and snarl under your breath.

Wikipedia is cool and it is useful. Turning a blind eye to Wikipedia as a reliable source is shortsighted and has implications beyond the realm of encyclopedias. Distrusting Wikipedia represents academias unwillingness to open the gates of collaborative truth-knowledge.

Scientific papers, meanwhile, are far from perfect.

Contrary to what your professors may tell you, Wikipedia, as a source, is statistically just as accurate as published encyclopedias for most of its content. A 2005 study by the Nature research journal, Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, found errors in both encyclopedias, but among the entries tested, the difference in accuracy was small.

Wikipedia, in their signature self-aware style, has reported on their own reliability as well. Wikipedia does not guarantee validity, but it is an invaluable research resource.

Inaccurate information on Wikipedia is usually corrected quickly. Hyperlinked citations back up nearly every claim made on an entry. The Sanderia malayensis jellyfishs page hosts six sources from international professionals, biologists and a handbook on poisonous jellies.

Scientific papers, meanwhile, are far from perfect. Soft sciences have suggested cures to unhappiness or boosts to confidence through simple behavioral change, but as other researchers try to replicate the experiments, their conclusions are significantly different. This indicates a serious error in the scientific method. If science isnt replicable, science is null.

In the last few years, a plethora of papers have fallen under criticism after researchers have failed to reproduce their resultsits been called the replication crisis. The crisis may have a few sources.

Mistakes happen on Wikipedia too and it is always essential to be critical of anything read.

First, its not hard to get published. The University of World News said in 2018 that too much scientific research is being published. It estimated nearly 30,000 scientific journals are in circulation, publishing approximately two million articles each year. They said the volume burdens the peer review system and makes it dysfunctional.

Second, the media likes to be the first to report on news, including science news. Journalists can be wrong and often are when it comes to reporting on science, especially when theyre grasping to be the first to report on new findings. These bad practices report inaccurate, unconfirmed, flawed science to their audience before the study can be replicated.

Mistakes happen on Wikipedia too and it is always essential to be critical of anything read. Search around, find supporting articles for any claim made and be aware that there may be flaws. But be able to recognize valid and sound knowledge.

Critical review by the editors of Wikipediawho can be any personis what makes Wikipedia so powerful and so accurate. Its the worlds largest encyclopediaabout 50 times larger than Britannicawith over six million entries and over 200,000 contributors. Wikipedia should serve as a banner for collaborationespecially between diverse groups.

In The wisdom of polarized crowds, a 2019 study from Nature Human Behavior, researchers found politically-diverse teams created more accurate entries than teams with less political diversity.

Wikipedia comes in clutch, often. Using it as a source may be frowned upon by professors, but a short chat with most of them and theyll say Wikipedia is an excellent place to start. The website is a tool, not a cheat code. It would be ignorant to ignore it, but if its used appropriately, maybe, just maybe, we could learn something about jellyfish.

Like Loading...

Read the original here:
We Need the Wisdom of Wikipedia - The LumberJack

Remember the 2018 floods in Sudan?

If the answer is no, youre not alone and its not just disaster fatigue making you lose track. The devastating floods that killed 23 people and affected 70,000 more barely caused a blip in American media.

That erasure now lives on in Wikipedia, the collaboratively written online encyclopedia that receives billions of visits per year. According to a recent study, the 2018 Sudan floods are just one of many major floods in low-income countries especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that either have truncated Wikipedia pages or lack pages altogether.

Get Grist in your inboxAlways free, always fresh

The Beacon Other choices

Ask your climate scientist if Grist is right for you. See our privacy policy

The researchers cross-referenced three global databases to identify major floods that occurred between 2016 and 2019 and found that fewer than 20 percent of major floods in low-income countries have Wikipedia pages in English. Meanwhile, 68 percent of major floods in high-income countries have been immortalized on Wikipedia. Although a bias toward English-speaking places can be expected in English-language Wikipedia articles, the authors found that language alone doesnt account for the magnitude of difference in article quantity and quality between the Global North and South.

Wikipedia allows anybody to edit or submit articles and has come under fire before for non-representative or biased coverage in areas ranging from women in STEM to black history. The root problem is often diagnosed as a lack of editor diversity: The vast majority of editors are white men, a trend thats even more pronounced among frequent editors.

Wikipedias information gap about floods also reflects the broader dearth of media coverage of disasters in low-income countries. Wikipedia authors are required to cite sources when they write or edit articles, and a severe lack of media coverage on floods and other disasters in underreported regions makes the corresponding Wikipedia articles inevitably less detailed. Articles about poorer and non-English speaking places that do surface in Western media tend to reinforce stereotypes or provide a flat, truncated snapshot of the situation.

These omissions on Wikipedia make even basic information about disasters in overlooked areas much more difficult for citizens or local policymakers to find, since data can be scattered across different flood databases. And people living in countries that tend to be ignored by Wikipedia editors might also be missing out on an important benefit that Wikipedia provides to higher-income communities as disasters are happening.

In particular in disasters, those pages are created when the disaster unfolds minutes or seconds after the disaster hits, said study author Carlos Castillo, a data science professor at Universitat Pompeu Fabra. And then they are visited very heavily. Theyre clearly providing a service to the community. English-language Wikipedia pages clearly wouldnt do much good in areas where most people dont speak or read English or areas without reliable internet access. But more robust Wikipedia coverage could provide helpful and accurate information in areas that are considered the most vulnerable to extreme weather events related to climate change.

If Wikipedias breathtaking variety of pedantic, obscure, and borderline pointless articles is any indication i.e. this bizarre New Yorkerlength article about the urge to defecate upon entering a bookstore the collective army of online editors should certainly be capable of amassing information about major disasters in developing countries. Efforts to tackle other famous gaps in Wikipedias coverage, like articles on female scientists or African-American public figures and history, have included mass Edit-a-thons focused on boosting information about a single topic or subject area.

Changing the makeup of the people who write (or dont write) the information that millions of people reference seems to be the best, and perhaps only, solution. All information about disasters is biased, Castillo added. But Wikipedia in reality is only as representative as the editors it has.

Never miss a beat! Sign up for The Beacon today. Its your daily dose of good news coupled with all the latest environmental coverage from Grist. Stop freakin and sign up for The Beacon. Youre gonna love it.

Read the original post:
Wikipedia is flooded with information but it has a blind spot - Grist