Mediaboss Marketing

Toto Wolff has contacted Max Verstappen to explain his much-discussed Wikipedia statements. The Mercedes team boss stressed that his comment belongs in a certain context and that he does respect such records.

When Verstappen took his tenth Formula 1 victory in a row at the Italian Grand Prix, he broke the record, which until then was held by Sebastian Vettel. The Mercedes team boss caused a stir by stating that records did not interest him that much and that they were "only interesting for Wikipedia, which nobody reads anyway".

Wolff soon realised that he might not have been better off making that statement, as he was frequently asked about it two weeks later in Singapore. Even then, the 51-year-old Austrian acknowledged that he has made more intelligent statements before, but now he also reveals that he contacted the three-time world champion that same weekend.

Article continues under ad

"I sent Max a message to explain and he was OK with it," Wolff said in conversation with De Telegraaf. "If you don't know the context, it seems like I don't recognise such a great record. But the point was that Niki Lauda used to always laugh at records with us. He called it a relic of the past and always looked forward. That's the story behind it, but it wasn't the most intelligent thing I ever said."

Read more:
Wolff contacted Verstappen to explain Wikipedia statement - GPblog

George Washington Masonic Memorial at Night (photo via Daniel Horowitz)

A nighttime photo of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial in Old Town took fifth place in the Wiki Loves Monuments 2023 photo contest.

The annual contest, held by Wikipedia, highlights photographs of historic sites from the National Register of Historic Places.

Photographer Daniel Horowitz, who specializes in nighttime and long-exposure photography, took sixth place in the competition last year with a photo of a British fortress on Lake Champlain. Horowitzs photo of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial won fifth place in the 2023 competition.

According to Wikimedia:

This night-time photograph showcases the George Washington Masonic National Memorial in Alexandria, Virginia. The memorial, a National Historic Landmark, stands as a modern tribute to the architecture of the ancient Lighthouse of Alexandria, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Captured in a long-exposure shot, the moving clouds create a dynamic backdrop to the illuminated structure, emphasizing its grandeur and its importance as a Masonic site and historical edifice.

See the article here:
George Washington Masonic Memorial photo honored in Wikipedia photo competition - ALXnow

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Reddit Email Print

Three minutes read

Wikipedia, the crowd-sourced online encyclopedia, has emerged as a vast repository of information, accessible to millions globally. However, the platforms open editing model has also made it susceptible to manipulation and bias, raising concerns about the reliability of its content. Malign actors, including the terrorist regime in Iran, have been known to organize coordinated editing campaigns to influence the content on Wikipedia and thus mislead a population that strives for the truth.

On January 7, the Times of London reported that Wikipedia entries have been changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities and other abuses, raising concerns that agents or supporters are using the site to manipulate publicly available information about the hostile regime. Information has also been changed to discredit Iranian dissident groups, while government publications have been presented as impartial news sources on the free online encyclopedia.

On January 15, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, a political scientist and board member of the Harvard International Review, wrote in Townhall, Wikipedia, relying on a community of volunteers to edit and maintain its content, has become a prime target for spreading disinformation and state propaganda. While Wikipedia has guidelines in place to ensure neutrality and accuracy, these guidelines can be manipulated and abused by well-organized and well-financed groups that infiltrate the site.

Explaining how Tehran has succeeded in feeding Wikipedia pages with unverified accusations as factual content on Wikipedia, Dr. Rafizadeh adds, The Iranian government has been known to spend significant sums of money to manipulate Western journalists and portray the principal Iranian opposition group, Mujahedin-e-Khalq, as a cult. These efforts involve social media campaigns, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased reports, and even direct hiring of reporters. By presenting unverified claims as facts, the regime seeks to discredit its main opposition and shape public opinion.

For instance, on the English language Wikipedia page for Peoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran, the writing suggests that At one point the MEK was Irans largest and most active armed dissident group, [18] and it is still sometimes presented by Western political backers as a major Iranian opposition group,[19][20][21] but it is also deeply unpopular today within Iran, largely due to its siding with Iraq in IranIraq War.[22][23]

The sources of this statement, which carries a significant amount of misinformation, are articles from reputable outlets. However, its noteworthy that the authors, who have historically expressed hostile views toward the organization, contribute to the narrative.

Notably, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, a reporter for The Guardian often cited in support of these claims, has a professional history with Fars News Agency, operated by Irans Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). For the record, heres the linkto his old press card.

For a regime whose official representatives openly admit that suppressing the MEK is the primary focus in any negotiation with foreign nations, it is not surprising that the manipulation of information sources for those seeking to understand the regimes primary perceived threat is prevalent. Consequently, the Persian-language Wikipedia page on the MEK, with more than 9,000 words, is evidently crafted with bias and contains a substantial amount of misinformation and disinformation.

However, the battle to dominate the narratives is not unique to the regime in Iran.

On October 17, 2022, Wired Magazine wrote, Governments have good reasons to influence Wikipedia: 1.8 billion unique devices are used to visit Wikimedia Foundation sites each month, and its pages are regularly among the top results for Google searches.

In 2021, a Chinese Wikipedia editor was found to have spent years writing 200 articles of fabricated history of medieval Russia, complete with imaginary states, aristocrats, and battles, Wired adds while also noting, Governments also often have more blunt tools at their disposal. Over the years, authoritarian leaders have blocked the site,taken its governing organization to court, andarrested its editors.

As per Wireds investigations, the issue of self-serving Wikipedia edits has persisted on the platform for an extended period. In 2007, the tech magazine published a story detailing the findings of a Caltech graduate who meticulously traced millions of changes made to Wikipedia pages.

The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organizations net address has made, Wired reported. Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material to entries or deleting whole swaths of critical material.

Wikipedias open editing model allows users to create multiple accounts, known as sockpuppets, to amplify a particular viewpoint or control discussions. These accounts, often operated by a single entity, can be used to sway content in a desired direction. Deliberate insertion of false information, biased perspectives, or outright vandalism can occur on Wikipedia pages.

The scenario of Irans regime utilizing Wikipedia as a battleground for narrative control highlights the necessity for individuals to approach online information, particularly on sensitive topics like Iranian politics, with a discerning mindset. Navigating the vast sea of data demands meticulous fact-checking, logical analysis, and an appreciation of historical contexts.

In an era where information abundance coexists with susceptibility to manipulation, the resonance of the famous saying becomes evident: In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.

Continue reading here:
In the War for Narratives Iran's Regime Takes to Wikipedia - NCRI - National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)

WWE broadcaster Kayla Braxton recently took to social media to express her unhappiness regarding the wrong Wikipedia update.

Braxton has been an important personality in the Stamford-based company. She has contributed with her best efforts, playing the role of a backstage interviewer and the host of WWE's The Bump. Kayla currently appears on SmackDown and has been vocal enough on social media platforms. Braxton recently opened up about her mental health and the steps she has taken to take good care of the same to be the strong, independent woman that she always has been.

Braxton recently took to Instagram to share an information update from Wikipedia, where her height was surprisingly seen as 1 foot 5 inches or 43 cm and again as 6 foot 11 inches or 211cm. She reacted to the wrong update and expressed her surprise and anger at the same time.

Check out the screengrab of Kayla Braxton's Instagram story below:

Kayla Braxton recently claimed that she was aware of The Rock's return on the September 15, 2023, episode of WWE SmackDown minutes before it actually happened.

Braxton asserted that she knew about The Brahma Bull's return 30 minutes prior to the event. She added that Pat McAfee brought the legend to the blue brand, and it came out as a surprise to the WWE Universe.

It would be interesting to see what plans WWE has charted out for Kayla Braxton.

What are your thoughts on Kayla Braxton's reaction? Sound off in the comments section below!

More:
Kayla Braxton furious over wrong Wikipedia update, shares reaction - Sportskeeda

Welcome to Source Notes, a Future Tense column about the internets information ecosystem.

Wikipedia, road infrastructure, and dramaone of these things doesnt sound like the other. But when Ben, also known as bmacs001, posted a TikTok video promising to spill the tea on how the site treats road and highway articles, the Wikipedia contributor suspected that people would find the topic intriguing: Forty of Wikipedias most prolific editors have seceded and made their own wiki, and Im among them.

Ben was part of the contingent of Wikipedia editors who contributed to the sites pages covering road and highway infrastructureeverything from Interstate 80 and Route 66 to tinier highways on the side of the Jersey Shore. Weve been chugging along doing our own thing on the pedia for the past two decades now, but in the past couple of years, our little corner of the site has come under attack, Ben said. Faced with so much hostility, Wikipedias highway enthusiasts felt they had no choice but to break away and form a separate project: AARoads Wiki.

With over 800,000 views and counting, the nearly four-minute TikTok video is a testament to how even extremely niche topics gain visibility on the platform. As the posts top comment put it, Im so here for interstate Wikipedia drama. But behind this seemingly amusing clash of nerds is a far more pressing issue: how to reconcile 20 years of Wikipedias core principles and values with the practical demands of present circumstances.

Before diving into the nuances of the Wiki-policies, its worth pointing out a distinction among the Wiki-people. There are railfanstrain enthusiasts whose (at times) obsessive interest has been highlighted in TV shows and documentaries. On Wikipedia these railfans tend to improve the sites articles on freight and high-speed rail lines, or public transportation options like the subway. But there is another subspecies: so-called roadgeeks. Ben (who uses they/them pronouns and requested that their surname not be published) pointed out that these two types of users have somewhat different motivations. Roadgeeks are drawn toward the immediacy of the subject mattersince many users drive on roads every daywhile railfans gravitate toward the historical aspect, since locomotives arent nearly as common as they once were. Then again, whats true in the United States does not necessarily hold true for countries where rail travel is more prevalent. Ben suspected that many European and U.K. Wikipedians who are railfans would likely be more drawn to roads if they lived in the U.S., suggesting that the railfan-roadgeek spectrum is in part a function of culture.

One flashpoint that inspired the recent revolt was a strict interpretation of the sites reliable sourcing policy. Take the example of an article about West Virginia Route 891, a short eastwest highway that ends on the Pennsylvania state line. A volunteer editor seeking to contribute content to the page might use information found on the West Virginia Department of Transportations website as a reference source. However, policy sticklers are likely to deny this usage because DOT is a primary source for highways (directly involved in the subject matter). According to the sites policies, Wikipedia should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers.

Angry road editors like Ben are up in arms, claiming that this hard-line interpretation of the guideline does not reflect the realities of the situation. With local newspapers going out of business left and right, there are rarely any other sources to draw from for these kinds of articles. Why not allow Wikipedians to cite from DOT, which is responsible for publishing highway routes?

Then again, its worth remembering that most of the time Wikipedia has good reasons for the prohibition against primary sources, especially with government entities. A states DOT content might generally be reliablebut allowing Wikipedians to cite from other primary sources, such as Chinas Central Propaganda Department, is not a risk worth taking. The question is whether there is some way to recognize an exemption, granting that some types of primary sources may be reliable while still protecting the integrity of the rule.

Wikipedias road editors have also struggled with the sites prohibition against original research. Returning to the example of West Virginia Route 891: An easy way to support the statement that this highway runs eastwest is to reference a map that shows it going that direction; however, citing such a map is considered original research by some of Wikipedias most hardcore policy enforcers.

Again, Wikipedia has good reasons for prohibiting true original researchthe policy has helped stop users from adding pseudoscience about Bigfoot excursions to the site, for example. But road editors are understandably frustrated when no original research is applied to exclude maps. Why should someone have to search out a second source to confirm in words what the map communicates in visual form?

Finally, theres the issue of Wikipedias notability guidelinethe principle that only topics that are truly worthy of notice should be included on the encyclopedia. Lack of notability is the reason why the proposed articles about many aspiring influencers get deleted every day. Roadgeeks tend to argue that highways are generally notable, and hence should not be screened for lack of encyclopedic importance, or at least not to the same extent as minor celebrities.

So far, general notability has not stopped a few Wikipedia editors from trying to delete the articles for lesser-known highways like West Virginia Route 891. In their TikTok video, Ben talked about how one particularly censorious editor tried to destroy our entire side of Wikipedia by tagging countless articles about roads and highways as non-notable topics that should be purged. The people who want to destroy, the only work that they need to do is destroy. Creating involves a lot more work, so were trying to fight back against people who have more time for deleting stuff, Ben told me in an interview.

Its possible that younger Wikipedia editors like Ben, whos in their 20s, have a different understanding of notability than did their predecessors. Where an entry on West Virginia Route 891 would have been too obscure to meet the criteria for print encyclopedias, those limitations do not apply to the digital platformand havent for decades. Understandably, the rising generation feels less nostalgia for the prior model or its gatekeeping. Theres this Encyclopedia Britannica-fication of the site that some people want to make happen, Ben said. Its bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.

When I first heard that Ben and the team of 40 Wikipedia editors split from the site to create the separate AARoads Wiki, I couldnt help but feel a little sad. The new project has accrued more than 15,000 articles about North American highways since it beganalthough most of them are just forks from existing Wikipedia content. Sure, separate wikis have sometimes been entertaining, like Wookiepedia for Star Warsbut rivals to Wikipedia typically fizzle out into obscurity. In the near term, the secession harms not just Wikipedia itself, which needs robust road information, but also generative A.I. tools that rely on Wikipedia as training data. Maybe theres room to interpret existing Wiki policiessourcing, notability, no original researchin a more practical way that can keep other Wikipedia road editors from jumping truck.

While the new AARoads Wiki is making progress, disputes have broken out among the rebel forces. Some users argued that the project should focus solely on highways, while others advocated for a broader scope. A recent decision not to port over Wikipedias existing articles about city streets remains contentious. And some users have taken to participating in both projects simultaneouslyAARoads Wiki and Wikipediaand not maintain a clean divorce.

The pavement isnt always smoother on the other side.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

See original here:
Why Wikipedia's highway editors took the exit ramp. - Slate