Mediaboss Marketing

A ban on girls in Afghanistan singing has been reversed by officials following a social media campaign.

Last week a memo was sent to schools in the Afghan capital Kabul forbidding girls older than 12 to attend choir practice or sing at public events.

An exception was made for ceremonies with 100% female participants, the education department said, but that girls could not be trained by a male music teacher.

In protest, Afghan activists across the country, including prominent women, flooded social media with videos of themselves singing their favourite songs using the hashtag#IAmMySong.

The ban, announced two days after International Womens Day, sparked international outrage, with some accusing the government of sympathising with the Taliban.

The campaign, started by Ahmad Sarmast the founder of Afghanistans Institute of Music, soon gained traction on Twitter, with some Afghan girls singing their favorite tunes for the camera and calls popping up for petitions to oppose the directive.

Turkish author Elif Safak was among those who shared a video of two Afghan girls singing, saying she had "so much respect for the young women" joining the campaign.

In light of the campaign, Afghanistan's education ministry scrambled to defend the memo, insisting it had been "misunderstood" saying it was a precaution against the spread of coronavirus.

An investigation was launched into the Kabul branch of the ministry and its chief, Ahmad Zameer Gowara, who was responsible for the memo, a spokesperson said.

Following the announcement that the ban had been lifted, Helsinki's deputy mayor for culture and leisure, Nasima Razmyar wrote on Twitter: "Afghanistan tried to ban girls from singing. Social media showed support with #IAmMySong and made officials to reverse the ban. This is for you brave Afghan girls!"

The ban - and subsequent reversal - come as womens rights groups are fighting to ensure that fragile human rights gains made over the last 20 years in Afghanistan since the US-led forces overthrew the Taliban - take centre stage in ongoing peace talks.

It also shows how the rights of girls and women are under threat from conservatives on both sides of the protracted conflict.

Continued here:
Ban on girls singing in Afghanistan reversed after social media campaign - ITV News

The International Cricket Council on Tuesday imposedeight-year bans on United Arab Emirates (UAE) cricketers Mohammad Naveed and Shaiman Anwar Butt. The two cricketers were found guilty of breachingICC Anti-Corruption Code as they tried to fix matches in the T20 World Cup qualifier in 2019.

While cricket as a sport has made great strides in the associate nations, it has come at a cost. The issues like match fixing in cricket, illegal activities and corruption have become a part of the sport with players being exposed toillegal betting, spot-fixing and ball-tampering etc. Recently, ICC Anti-Corruption Unit General ManagerAlex Marshall opened up on match fixing in cricket, corruption andhow T20 leagues are causing a threat to the game.

While speaking toESPNCricinfo, Marshall said that the thingwhich makes the top associate nationsso attractive to the corruptors and match-fixers is the relatively low cricket income of people from Nepal, UAE, Oman andsome of the African cricket nations. He further said that the players from these countries are being paid very little if anything at all Marshall cited the example of Zimbabwe to explain his point.

The ICC ACU General manager stated that Zimbabweare among the poorest of the full member nations which is whyplayers there are being offered $30,000 to commit corrupt conduct. On the other hand,the players in the Associates areoffered $10,000. whileplayersin European club matches getoffered 3,000 Euros. According to Marshall, that's the sort of scale of the offers. Elaborating on the same, he reckoned thatan offer of $10,000 to a playerin some of these countries is an awful lot of money. Marshall further said that an offer of $30,000 in Zimbabwe would probably help one buy a house.

Speaking about the strategies to curb these activities, Marshall said thatat the ICCtheir fundamental objective is to see the growth and development of cricket. He added that the idea that the Associates are going to get better and more extensive coverage is absolutely brilliant and theycelebrate it along with everyone else. Marshall acknowledged that theyalso recognise that the more popular any form of cricket becomes, the more likely it is that corruptors will target it which is why they aredoing a whole load of different things.

He revealed that one of the things is that they're working with all the Associates, but particularly the ones who are higher risk, to provide them with material around education and what they should do in the event of anyone receiving an approach or things for them to look out for in the way they run their matches. Marshall opinedthat theywill also risk assess which of those matches are most likely to be targeted and subsequently put-putanti-corruption resources into that particular match.

Marshall also spoke on how Afghanistan Premier League is a more favourableoption for bookies. Comparing APL to a Test match, Marshall said thatwith its evening short-form matches, the APL is a much more attractive option to the viewing audience which is why they're going to bet on it. He further said that corruptors go after leagues like APL and Global T20 Canada because they like weak governance chaos because it allows them in.

Marshall reiterated that the bookies love franchise events where all the teams have not been sold with three weeks to go and the people running the event are desperate to secure the next owner or the next two owners at the last minute. According to Marshall,corruptors look for these opportunities andAPL is a very good example of poor governance, an appalling run event, dreadful accreditation and a whole host of other issues that just meansit isvery attractive to corruptors.

Marshall stated that they absolutely want to see a higher profile for Associate cricket and he thinksit's comingbecauseof the pathway and qualifier events where according to him, some excellent cricket will be played. Citing the example of Afghanistan cricket, Marshall said that a number ofAfghan players (Rashid Khan, Mujeeb ur Rahman, Mohammad Nabi) have risen to prominence andare playing around the world which makes him believe that more new playerswill come through.

Stay updated on the latest IND VS ENGnews. From live updates to breaking news, Republic World brings you all the live updates online so that you don't miss out on the IND VS ENG extravaganza.

Continued here:
ICC ACU head worried over corruption in T20 leagues, cites Afghanistan example for success - Republic TV

Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, published a blog postthis month declaring that the online encyclopedias neutral point of view policy is dead due to the rampant left-wing bias of the site. Noting the article on President Donald Trump, Sanger contrasted its extensive coverage of presidential scandals with the largely scandal-free article on former President Barack Obama.

Sanger also criticized Wikipedias coverage of religion and other controversial topics. After Fox News reported on his blog post, many Wikipedians ignored the bias Sanger identified and instead responded by attacking the conservative outlet as well as Sanger.

On May 14, Sanger published a blog piece titled Wikipedia Is Badly Biased and started by declaring Wikipedias Neutral Point of View policy dead. Having founded the online encyclopedia with Jimmy Wales and having been involved in the original drafting of the policy, Sanger offered particular insight into its development and its practice in recent years. On the current policys rejection of providing equal validity to different views, Sanger stated this went directly against the original policys intent and that as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science.

Providing examples, Sanger noted former President Obamas article excludes most notable scandals during his Administration, such as the bungled ATF Fast and Furious operation that armed Mexican cartels who killed a U.S. border agent or the targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS. By contrast, Sanger pointed to Trumps article containing overwhelmingly negative sections on the President regarding his public profile as well as investigations and impeachment. The sections critical of Trump and his presidency are nearly as long as those dealing with his presidency overall. He further criticized Wikipedia repeatedly saying Trump makes false statements rather than attributing such characterizations to sources.

Wikipedias coverage of other contentious political topics such as abortion were also criticized with Sanger singling out Wikipedia claiming abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine. He pointed out how articles on legalization of drugs and gay adoption were focused on positives with little to no mention of criticisms. In the latter case, Sanger noted the section on debate about gay adoption only included arguments in favor rather than any against it. Sanger also criticized Wikipedias coverage of religion describing the article on Jesus as a liberal academic discussion focused on assorted difficulties and controversies without explaining traditional or orthodox views of those issues.

Further criticism was directed at Wikipedias handling of scientific issues, where Sanger acknowledged some would consider a bias towards science to be desirable. However, he noted that it is not always clear what constitutes a legitimate scientific view and Wikipeda tends to take for granted and aggressively assert the views of the scientific establishment despite scientific minorities rejecting or criticizing these views such as on global warming. In the end, Sanger called on Wikipedias community to concede that they have abandoned neutrality, while stating this was unlikely as Wikipedia editors live in a fantasy world of their own making.

After his post was covered by Fox News, editors on Wikipedia posted about his remarks on a discussion page for the sites other co-founder, Jimmy Wales,where users bring issues to his attention and seek his comments. While Wales has yet to respond to Sangers criticism, many other editors responded to the news, though most avoided addressing his concerns about political bias. Instead, editors mainly focused on criticizing Fox News with one of the first editors responding stating fact and neutrality have their own bias, and one largely at odds with Fox. One cynically suggested Sangers criticism was him angling for a position at the network.

Editors on Wikipedia often dismiss criticism of the sites history of left-wing bias, despite repeated incidents such as editors burying information about CNNs blackmail controversy, an editor running a smear campaign against then-nominee for the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh, or Antifa supporters downplaying the far-left groups violent conduct including by censoring mention of the attack on journalist Andy Ngo. Smears of President Trump have included listing him and various prominent conservatives as advocates of a Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory for talking about South African farm attacks. Editors contrarily defended then-incoming New York Times editor Sarah Jeongs bigoted anti-white commentary.

Wikipedias bias was particularly evident on Russiagate as editors sought to purge reliable sources that criticized Russia hacking allegations and continued pushing the Trump campaign collusion theory, such as by insisting on the credibility of the infamous Steele Dossier, despite Muellers report into alleged Russian interference finding no evidence supporting the theory. They also repeatedly spun articles on the Ukraine controversy against Trump and censored the alleged name of the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment drive.

Editors have even banned numerous conservative news sources, including Breitbart, sometimes citing their unfavorable reporting of the Russiagate narrative as evidence.

Having departed Wikipedia in its earlier years, Sanger has been a critic of the sites path in the time since and has attempted to help or establish various alternatives to the site such as Citizendium and Everipedia. In his blog post he cites his latest project Encyclosphere, which seeks to build a network of online encyclopedias with a variety of perspectives similar to the blogosphere. Such alternatives have struggled to challenge the dominance of Wikipedia due to Big Tech sites such as YouTube and Facebook heavily incorporating and favoring Wikipedia.

Media outlets increasingly tout the reliability of Wikipedia, many citing it as the solution to fake news and numerous recent pieces describing it as a vital information source on the coronavirus pandemic. Wikipedia is so widely relied on that studies found its content shapes scientific research and economic patterns. News outlets and academic textbooks have sometimes copied Wikipedia content uncredited, such as the sites heavily slanted article smearing the GamerGate anti-corruption movement in gaming, which has been copied extensively by outlets including the BBC and USA Today. Given widespread adoption of Wikipedia by establishment institutions, the criticism from its co-founder will likely go unheeded.

T. D. Adleredited Wikipedia as The Devils Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the sites administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.

Read more:
Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site's Neutrality Is 'Dead' Thanks ...

Everybody uses Wikipedia.

Its currently the 8th most visited website in the U.S. and the 13th most trafficked site in the world. The website bills itself as the free encyclopedia, providing knowledge free of charge to a global user base. However, the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, hopes that some companies will pay for it.

Dont worry, itll still likely be free for you, dear Mashable reader. But for companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon, Wikipedia is hoping to charge them for publishing its content.

A new report by Wired looks into a brand new division under the Wikimedia umbrella called Wikimedia Enterprise. In a first for the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Enterprise will offer a paid service targeting Wikipedias biggest users: Big Tech companies.

Wikimedia Enterprise, according to the organization, will provide a commercial product that tailors Wikipedias content for publication on services provided by Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon services that millions upon millions of people use every day.

Input a query into Google and the search engine will often provide a snippet from Wikipedia right there on the page. Users dont even have to leave Googles search engine for their answer. Ask Apples Siri or Amazons Alexa a question and both the virtual assistants will dig into Wikipedias archives to spit out an answer for you. YouTube even depends on Wikipedia to fight misinformation on its video platform.

Wikipedias current cost to the multi-billion dollar tech conglomerates? Nothing. Its completely free of charge.

In a 2018 interview with TechCrunch, Wikimedia Foundation Chief Revenue Officer Lisa Seitz-Gruwell shared that while Wikipedias content is free to use by all, some companies were exploiting the organization by not reciprocating.

For now, Wikimedia Foundation's $100 million budget is funded by donations from users and grant money provided to the Wikimedia Foundation. Some of the companies they're looking to charge, like Google, have donated millions of dollars to the organization. The year Gruwell spoke to TechCrunch, however, the tech outlet pointed out that Amazon had donated nothing.

According to the Wikimedia Foundation, these companies currently have employees and, in some cases, entire teams, working on delivering Wikipedias content through its own systems. The paid service provided by Wikimedia Enterprise will help do that work for them and, in turn, bring in a new revenue stream for the nonprofit.

Obviously, Wikipedia will continue to be free for its regular global user base. In fact, Wikimedias Seitz-Gruwell tells Wired that the free service currently being used by Google and the other Big Tech companies will continue to be available to even those for-profit corporations.

So will Big Tech kick back some of its profits to Wikipedia, a service that has provided them so much free content for years? According to Wikimedia Foundation, the organization is already in talks with these companies and deals may be reached as early as June.

A more pressing question, however, is how will Wikipedias army of volunteers react? The organization has depended on its volunteers to actually create, research, update, moderate, and fact-check its content since the websites founding. Will they view this as Wikipedia selling out? Will some want compensation for their work in return? Big Tech has been profiting off of services utilizing Wikipedia at no-charge for years. Now that Wikipedia looks to get paid, will its volunteers look to be compensated too?

Update: March, 16, 2021, 7:55 p.m. ET: The original story contained a sentence that read, "However, the nonprofit which runs Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, hopes that it soon wont be free for everybody." For the sake of clarity, we changed it to, "However, the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, hopes that some companies will pay for it."

View original post here:
Wikipedia wants to charge Google, Amazon, and Apple for using its content - Mashable

Wikipedia's parent company has revealed it is set to launch a new paid-for service for companies that take information from the online encyclopedia.

The new Wikimedia Enterprise platform will only apply to companies that use content from Wikipedia, with the likes of Google, Amazon and Facebook set to be affected.

However normal everyday users of Wikipedia will still be able to access the service for free.

Wikimedia Enterprise will look to provide "paid developer tools that make it easier for companies and organizations to consume and re-use Wikimedia data," the company noted.

The new endeavour is thought to be set to launch later in 2021, with the Wikimedia Foundation already revealing some parts of the modalities of the new programme.

While the regular Wikipedia offering will be free, the new option is an experiment toward sustainability and maintaining independence for the platform.

Top tech companies use Wikipedia in myriad ways, such as Googles knowledge boxes, as well as voice assistants like Amazons Alexa and Apples Siri using data from the same platform.

Some fund Wikipedia through donations, but many others that use Wikipedia resources in a major way, get away without even so much as a thank you note.

"This is the first time the foundation has recognised that commercial users are users of our service. We've known they are there, but never really treated them as a user base," Lane Becker, a senior director at the Wikimedia Foundation, told Wired.

Premium customers could see themselves getting access to Wikipedia data delivered quicker, or formatted in a way that suits them best - ultimately solving some of the most in-depth issues for these tech giants.

This is about setting up the movement to thrive for decades to come, to weather any storm, and to genuinely stand a chance at achieving the mission first conceived 20 years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation wrote in an online essay.

Were going to need more resources, more partners, and more allies if we are going to achieve the goals implicit in our vision statement.

Via Wired

Here is the original post:
Wikipedia is getting a 'premium' paid version - but you can't get it - TechRadar