An Italian take on English Wikipedia

[Mancunium]

Come orientare la carta igienica? Ma quanto fa ridere Wikipedia in inglese
Nella straripante versione britannica dell’enciclopedia (4,6 milioni di voci) c’è spazio per tutto: dalla lottocrazia a come nei vari paesi del mondo si risponde agli starnuti
ari paesi del mondo si risponde agli starnuti
by Marco Magrini, L'Espresso, 5 November 2014 linkhttp://espresso.repubblica.it/visioni/t ... =HEF_RULLO[/link]

Google-translation from Italian linkhttps://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=[/link]

As a guide the toilet paper? But what makes me laugh the English Wikipedia
In the overwhelming British version of the encyclopedia (4.6 million entries) there is room for everything from lottocrazia how in the various countries of the world are responding to sneezing

[...] But how does the British to produce more than twice as many voices than any other language? [...] From the English Wikipedia, we chose five items not found in the Italian version, just to give you an idea.

Orientation of toilet paper

Toilet_paper_orientation (T-H-L)
And four more example of weird English Wikipedia stuff:
United_States_presidential_pets (T-H-L)
Demarchy (T-H-L)
Responses_to_sneezing (T-H-L)
Tycho_Brahe (T-H-L)

[Johnny Au]

Wow. The Italian Wikipedia does not have an article on one of the most famous astronomers in history.

[Mancunium]

Wow. The Italian Wikipedia does not have an article on one of the most famous astronomers in history.

Yes, it does:
Tycho Brahe
Italian Wikipedia linkhttp://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe[/link]

Please read the translation provided before commenting.

[Johnny Au]

Wow. The Italian Wikipedia does not have an article on one of the most famous astronomers in history.

Yes, it does:
Tycho Brahe
Italian Wikipedia linkhttp://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe[/link]

Please read the translation provided before commenting.

Ah. Thank you.

Fortunately, there is no separate article on Tycho's nose.

[Textnyymi]

It is often said that the English Wikipedia is too self-referential, tends to include too much stuff which isn't supposed to be on an encyclopedia, and there is a tendency to over analyze things.

Apart from that, those article writers could benefit from reading the "crap articles" thread, but given they are catching this stuff with about 3 to 5 years of delay, we can conclude that online newspapers are even worse than solid traditional newspapers, since they tend to pander to a technologically illiterate and sometimes functionally illiterate crowd.

Not that it matters, some people find commenting and whining all the time on social media a good way to pass time

[Enr_Ptr]

The usual "curiosity article" about "strange facts" on Wikipedia.

Very sad that newspapers copy from Wikipedia, but when they talk about Wikipedia is often only for "funny things".

[Textnyymi]

The usual "curiosity article" about "strange facts" on Wikipedia.

Very sad that newspapers copy from Wikipedia, but when they talk about Wikipedia is often only for "funny things".

Newspaper writers have one thing to do: earning money. If they can do it by pandering, they will do it.

[Johnny Au]

Mainstream journalists somehow keep treating Wikipedia as a niche website, despite the fact that Wikipedia has more viewers than Twitter according to Alexa!

[thekohser]

Mainstream journalists somehow keep treating Wikipedia as a niche website, despite the fact that Wikipedia has more viewers than Twitter according to Alexa!

Does the Twitter app register as a "page view" in Alexa? I doubt it. And I suspect more people are using a Twitter app to tweet than using a desktop browser. And I also assure you that fewer than 5% of Wikipedia activity originates from any Wikipedia app.

[Johnny Au]

Mainstream journalists somehow keep treating Wikipedia as a niche website, despite the fact that Wikipedia has more viewers than Twitter according to Alexa!

Does the Twitter app register as a "page view" in Alexa? I doubt it. And I suspect more people are using a Twitter app to tweet than using a desktop browser. And I also assure you that fewer than 5% of Wikipedia activity originates from any Wikipedia app.

This is why Alexa cannot be trusted.

[Textnyymi]

And finally i found something about that old never ending lawsuit against the Italian Wikipedia.

http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/201 ... -92316300/

After 5 years, they lost the cause.
On an unrelated note, they are now under investigation for tax evasion, as well.

During the trial against Wikimedia Italia, the court declared that Wikipedia "offers a service which is based upon users who are free to edit various pages on the encyclopedia; it is such freedom that excludes any [obligation to guarantee the absence of any offending material on its sites] and it finds its equilibrium in the possibility that anyone can modify content and ask for its removal".

The judge also ruled that Wikimedia Foundation covers the simple role of "hosting provider" for Wikipedia, and as such it's not obliged to perform preventative checks on what is being published.

"The attempts to hold neutral hosting platforms responsible - platforms such as today's forums - threaten the existence of such platforms, and threaten progress and free communication", words written on Wikimedia's blog as a comment for the trial. "Wikimedia Foundation will not wait to defend the largest holder of human knowledge on the planet, against those who challenge the right of Wikimedia's community to communicate, to create, and to freely share".

In other words, there is a basic recognition that a hosting provider is not responsible (to what extent?) for the contents. But for now, the best thing to do is to blank and protect the offended pages, which appears to be a decent compromise, since a lawsuit can be expensive, lenghty, and would certainly stress people out. This doesn't look too different from what Section 230 offers.

There are currently 17 pages which have been blanked and protected pages due to lawsuit threats.

[thekohser]

After 5 years, they lost the cause.

And former Wikimedia Italy head, Frieda Brioschi, is relieved that she can "begin again to breathe: I will stop waking up in the middle of the night fixated on the case or to be concerned about the feasibility of buying a house." She does lament, though, "No one will give back my five years of heartache".

Was it worth it, Frieda, to head up a cash-strapped chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, while Sue Gardner and her pals in San Francisco fanned themselves with donors' dollars while sipping champagne?

Time for a slice of cake, Frieda:

[Textnyymi]

This blog entry written by M. Paulson provides more information about the lawsuit

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/07/22/v ... -of-users/

At least they wrote something that sounds intelligent at the end:

-
Note: While this decision represents important progress towards protecting hosting providers like the Wikimedia Foundation, it is equally important to remember that every individual is legally responsible for his or her actions both online and off. For your own protection, you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content to the Wikimedia projects that may result in criminal or civil liability under the laws of the United States or any country that may claim jurisdiction over you. For more information, please see our Terms of Use and Legal Policies.
-

[tarantino]

Note: While this decision represents important progress towards protecting hosting providers like the Wikimedia Foundation, it is equally important to remember that every individual is legally responsible for his or her actions both online and off. For your own protection, you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content to the Wikimedia projects that may result in criminal or civil liability under the laws of the United States or any country that may claim jurisdiction over you. For more information, please see our Terms of Use and Legal Policies.
-

For example, Blacklight Power, Inc. v Andy The Grump.