Missing Articles — Low-hanging Fruit?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue May 27, 2014 5:47 pm

Flameau wrote:Sorry if this is off-topic, but I think it is a good rebuttal.

These studies may represent appropriate support for your claims, but they may not. I'm seeing that there is a lot of focus on "detection" methods, and time-to-revert detected vandal edits. What the studies don't address is that there are forms of vandalism that go undetected (as vandalism) and are therefore never reverted.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue May 27, 2014 5:59 pm

A lot of the vandalism studies on Wikipedia define "vandalism" as "any edit that is reverted as vandalism". Which means 100% of "vandalism" is detected, and all that is measured is how fast it happens. Actually independently reviewing even a sample of edits and classifying them requires effort that cannot be done by computer. A couple of studies have had the funding to hire enough RAs to do this (I think one actually used Amazon's Mechanical Turk), but for the most part the party doing the study simply didn't want to put out that much effort.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue May 27, 2014 6:02 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:A lot of the vandalism studies on Wikipedia define "vandalism" as "any edit that is reverted as vandalism". Which means 100% of "vandalism" is detected, and all that is measured is how fast it happens. Actually independently reviewing even a sample of edits and classifying them requires effort that cannot be done by computer. A couple of studies have had the funding to hire enough RAs to do this (I think one actually used Amazon's Mechanical Turk), but for the most part the party doing the study simply didn't want to put out that much effort.

Of course a lot of vandalism is subjective too though. Some well intentioned edits have been identified as vandalism and some admins actions have been reverted as vandalism by those who don't agree.

Flameau · Unread post by **Flameau** » Tue May 27, 2014 6:10 pm

Kelly Martin, you are right and I did not think of it in such a way. I value Wikipediocracy as watchdog and as a place where proper and insightful criticism can be shared as a separate entity. Naturally, with my ideological views, I've improperly framed this discussion the wrong way. Thanks for that reality check. I'd like to positively impact and change Wikipedia, but without "the tools" to do so. Criticism here allowed me to become a better Wikipedian - I just wish admins (I am not one) reflected on such observations in the same way.

It would be good if Wikipedia resurrected that missing article section better.... it does need a lot of work. Though I am not the person to do so.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue May 27, 2014 6:21 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:A lot of the vandalism studies on Wikipedia define "vandalism" as "any edit that is reverted as vandalism". Which means 100% of "vandalism" is detected, and all that is measured is how fast it happens. Actually independently reviewing even a sample of edits and classifying them requires effort that cannot be done by computer. A couple of studies have had the funding to hire enough RAs to do this (I think one actually used Amazon's Mechanical Turk), but for the most part the party doing the study simply didn't want to put out that much effort.

I performed such a study two years ago, myself, using a random block of recent changes. And I generated a nice chart. (Which no one seems to want to see or cares about.)

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Tue May 27, 2014 6:42 pm

That 96 million potential articles is growing (especially due to new events (including sporting events), new discoveries, new inventions, new people who become famous, and new works being created).

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue May 27, 2014 7:17 pm

Johnny Au wrote:That 96 million potential articles is growing (especially due to new events (including sporting events), new discoveries, new inventions, new people who become famous, and new works being created).

I was going to post this exact post but was overcome with ennui.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue May 27, 2014 7:51 pm

thekohser wrote:I would venture a guess that every topic that receives coverage in Britannica probably has a corresponding article in Wikipedia.

Certainly, everything covered in the 1911 edition does.

Vocal · Unread post by **Vocal** » Wed May 28, 2014 1:47 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:A lot of the vandalism studies on Wikipedia define "vandalism" as "any edit that is reverted as vandalism". Which means 100% of "vandalism" is detected, and all that is measured is how fast it happens. Actually independently reviewing even a sample of edits and classifying them requires effort that cannot be done by computer. A couple of studies have had the funding to hire enough RAs to do this (I think one actually used Amazon's Mechanical Turk), but for the most part the party doing the study simply didn't want to put out that much effort.
I performed such a study two years ago, myself, using a random block of recent changes. And I generated a nice chart. (Which no one seems to want to see or cares about.)

Shut up and put it up here.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed May 28, 2014 2:32 pm

Vocal wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:A lot of the vandalism studies on Wikipedia define "vandalism" as "any edit that is reverted as vandalism". Which means 100% of "vandalism" is detected, and all that is measured is how fast it happens. Actually independently reviewing even a sample of edits and classifying them requires effort that cannot be done by computer. A couple of studies have had the funding to hire enough RAs to do this (I think one actually used Amazon's Mechanical Turk), but for the most part the party doing the study simply didn't want to put out that much effort.
I performed such a study two years ago, myself, using a random block of recent changes. And I generated a nice chart. (Which no one seems to want to see or cares about.)
Shut up and put it up here.

No, no.
You have to beg him.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu May 29, 2014 6:27 am

Vigilant wrote:
Vocal wrote:Shut up and put it up here.
No, no.
You have to beg him.

Kneel, slaves.

Chart34.png

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu May 29, 2014 2:29 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Kneel, slaves.

980 diffs?! That was a ton of work, Eric. Good to see that you also saw 4% vandalism, which is in line with other studies. It's a nice feature that you also caught nearly 1% that were reverts that should have been abstained from. It's too bad that you didn't specifically track what happened to each of the 4% vandal edits, but that would have been even more work, and you're not paid for this stuff the way the Wikimedia Foundation staff is, and they do a lot less than you in the content analysis department!.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:59 pm

Nice work.

I'll have one of my minions come and groom you now.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:57 pm

Shep Gordon (T-H-L)

Wikipedia has Supermensch: The Legend of Shep Gordon (T-H-L), but no Shep Gordon.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:01 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
sparkzilla wrote:I wonder which articles need to be created? The encyclopedia is effectively finished. What more needs to be said about Fourier transforms? I am genuinely interested in what "encyclopedic" content you think needs to be created. Can you give some examples?
The majority of people in the Dictionary of National Biography don't have articles. (Quite a few just have copies of the DNB articles so are in need of an update, but that's another issue.)
I think that "Wikipedia Articles Which Need to be Created" might be a productive thread. WP really doesn't have a good apparatus for steering willing content people to needed work.

I agree with the implication of Poetlister's statement that one of WP's big gaps is in the area of "Biographies of Dead People." The coverage of American state politicians of the 19th Century is extremely poor, for example. If you look at my friend Orange Mike's edit history, he has done yeoman's work putting up basic bios of 19th C. Wisconsin state politicians. Most states are in worse shape.

In general, there is a great deal to be done with 19th Century American bios of all types. I can only presume that the situation is similar for 19th Century British biography, and much, much worse for biographies of this era from all other countries.

South American history is awful. I don't delve into it much, I know little about it, but every time I bump into related topics I am struck by the weakness. Major figures have bios, sometimes good, but even 20th Century biographies are poor. National histories are not strong for the region. I presume the situation for Asia and Africa is worse.

Economics on WP is ghastly. It would take a dozen good content people a couple years to get that topic up to snuff.

These off the top of my head.

Most people come to WP wanting to write about some "big" topic though — and these have been well covered and often have numerous "gatekeepers" watching the content.

RfB

Bumped from another thread...

t

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:04 pm

thekohser wrote:Okay, I will play along.

Annaly Capital Management (T-H-L) is the sixth-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000. Wikipedia has never bothered to create an article about it.

Superior Energy Services (T-H-L) is the seventh-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000, and it will likely soon be in the Fortune 500. Wikipedia doesn't care.

Nexeo Solutions Holdings (T-H-L) is the eleventh-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000, also on a potential quick track to the Fortune 500. No shit has been given by Wikipedia.

I could go on, but I grow weary.

More than seven months later, and Wikipedia has gained one article (out of these three). It is one sentence long.

Always improving!

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:12 pm

thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:Okay, I will play along.

Annaly Capital Management (T-H-L) is the sixth-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000. Wikipedia has never bothered to create an article about it.

Superior Energy Services (T-H-L) is the seventh-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000, and it will likely soon be in the Fortune 500. Wikipedia doesn't care.

Nexeo Solutions Holdings (T-H-L) is the eleventh-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000, also on a potential quick track to the Fortune 500. No shit has been given by Wikipedia.

I could go on, but I grow weary.
More than seven months later, and Wikipedia has gained one article (out of these three). It is one sentence long.

Always improving!

We can say this as a general rule: coverage of corporation histories is abysmal, even for very large corporations.

The real root of the paid editing problem.....

RfB

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:21 pm

Glenn Britt (T-H-L)

No longer at risk of BLP violations.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:30 pm

There are no articles on sub-Saharan African battle-axes. The Zulus are famous for their battle-axes for example.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:23 pm

To my surprise, no article on the 1958 Y-12 criticality incident. The incident isn't even mentioned in the main article.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:02 pm

Keith Stewartson (1925-83), described by Sir James Lighthill (T-H-L) as "one of the most mathematically profound of this century's great applied mathematicians". (That's last century now.) Strangely, he's on the German site.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:18 am

Cla68 wrote:To my surprise, no article on the 1958 Y-12 criticality incident. The incident isn't even mentioned in the main article.

You can thank Orlady, an employee of Oak Ridge, for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =556195936

Plus, something happened in June 2011 that was rev-deleted:

(cur | prev) 05:49, 9 June 2011‎ Alison (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,768 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Y-12 National Security Complex: Oversight issues / ticket:2011060910002682 ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)))) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:23, 9 June 2011‎ Bms4880 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,768 bytes) (-587)‎ . . (Undid revision 433334996 by J-water334 (talk)- removing unencyclopedic)
(cur | prev) 04:45, 9 June 2011‎ J-water334 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,355 bytes) (+587)‎ . . (→‎History)
(cur | prev) 19:58, 7 June 2011‎ Orlady (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,768 bytes) (-587)‎ . . (Reverted edits by J-water334 (talk) to last version by Dysmorodrepanis)
(cur | prev) 19:20, 7 June 2011‎ J-water334 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,355 bytes) (+587)‎

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:51 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Cla68 wrote:To my surprise, no article on the 1958 Y-12 criticality incident. The incident isn't even mentioned in the main article.
You can thank Orlady, an employee of Oak Ridge, for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =556195936

I wasn't going to add the info to the article, but very little motivates me more than when a WP insider is giving the appearance of trying to cover something up. There it is. Later on, I will create a redirect page called "Y-12 criticality incident".

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:36 am

EricBarbour wrote:Plus, something happened in June 2011 that was rev-deleted:
(cur | prev) 05:49, 9 June 2011‎ Alison (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,768 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Y-12 National Security Complex: Oversight issues / ticket:2011060910002682 ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)))) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:23, 9 June 2011‎ Bms4880 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,768 bytes) (-587)‎ . . (Undid revision 433334996 by J-water334 (talk)- removing unencyclopedic)
(cur | prev) 04:45, 9 June 2011‎ J-water334 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,355 bytes) (+587)‎ . . (→‎History)
(cur | prev) 19:58, 7 June 2011‎ Orlady (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,768 bytes) (-587)‎ . . (Reverted edits by J-water334 (talk) to last version by Dysmorodrepanis)
(cur | prev) 19:20, 7 June 2011‎ J-water334 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,355 bytes) (+587)‎

It was oversighted, and related to highly personal information posted about an employee. Nothing sinister - just highly inappropriate. And that's all I can say.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 5:58 am

I might add that most of the articles in Category:Oak Ridge National Laboratory (T-H-L) show signs of COI editing, not just by her.
Report later.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:49 am

Cla68 wrote:...very little motivates me more than when a WP insider is giving the appearance of trying to cover something up.

You must be a very, very busy man, then.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:38 pm

Surprising that there's no article about Kevin DeSanctis (T-H-L).

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:27 pm

For all the discussion about censorship, there are no List of banned television shows (T-H-L).

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:38 pm

NATM Buying Group. I forget what NATM stands for, but they bought out my old employer nearly 20 years ago. This 2008 article says of Sun Television and H H Gregg: "Both firms belong to NATM Buying Corp., perhaps the most influential buying group in their business.": link

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:39 am

mac wrote:NATM Buying Group. I forget what NATM stands for, but they bought out my old employer nearly 20 years ago. This 2008 article says of Sun Television and H H Gregg: "Both firms belong to NATM Buying Corp., perhaps the most influential buying group in their business.": link

President/Executive Director, William Trawick
Director of Operations, Michael Maund
Office Administrator, Ada Garfinkle
Operations Assistant, Janet Viggiani

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:33 am

Don't forget "Mad Dog", posted in the BLP section.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:13 pm

Forrest Hayes, married Google executive and father of five who died of a heroin overdose, allegedly administered by a prostitute. link

Oh look, it was deleted from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrest Hayes (T-H-L). I wonder why.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:49 pm

mac wrote:Forrest Hayes, married Google executive and father of five who died of a heroin overdose, allegedly administered by a prostitute. link

Oh look, it was deleted from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrest Hayes (T-H-L). I wonder why.

And before anyone says "because Wikipedia doesn't host biographies about people who are mostly famous for one embarrassing act", please see Shannon Richardson (T-H-L).

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:12 pm

Laurence Buckman, probably Britain's best-known medical General Practitioner. He's even in Debrett's.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:55 am

Criticism of Twitter (T-H-L) does not exist. Yes, people do die from tweets, albeit indirectly (mainly through cyberbullying).

It is not to be confused with Censorship of Twitter (T-H-L), which mainly involves governments blocking said website.

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:28 pm

Johnny Au wrote:Criticism of Twitter (T-H-L) does not exist. Yes, people do die from tweets, albeit indirectly (mainly through cyberbullying).

It is not to be confused with Censorship of Twitter (T-H-L), which mainly involves governments blocking said website.

There are a few articles within Category:Twitter controversies (T-H-L)

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:59 pm

Drowninginlimbo wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:Criticism of Twitter (T-H-L) does not exist. Yes, people do die from tweets, albeit indirectly (mainly through cyberbullying).

It is not to be confused with Censorship of Twitter (T-H-L), which mainly involves governments blocking said website.
There are a few articles within Category:Twitter controversies (T-H-L)

...and none involve school boards or cyberbullying cases involving Twitter; most involve government and/or celebrities and/or journalism and/or pranks. There should be a general article on Twitter controversies that include those that don't merit their own articles.

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:44 pm

Johnny Au wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:Criticism of Twitter (T-H-L) does not exist. Yes, people do die from tweets, albeit indirectly (mainly through cyberbullying).

It is not to be confused with Censorship of Twitter (T-H-L), which mainly involves governments blocking said website.
There are a few articles within Category:Twitter controversies (T-H-L)
...and none involve school boards or cyberbullying cases involving Twitter; most involve government and/or celebrities and/or journalism and/or pranks. There should be a general article on Twitter controversies that include those that don't merit their own articles.

Yeah I agree, these articles could be a good place to build it around, as well as sources specific to cyberbullying, and abhorrent trending hashtags like "jadapose" and the revenge porn "Twitter Purge". Now that I think about it Twitter has been used for disgusting purposes.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:56 pm

Drowninginlimbo wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:Criticism of Twitter (T-H-L) does not exist. Yes, people do die from tweets, albeit indirectly (mainly through cyberbullying).

It is not to be confused with Censorship of Twitter (T-H-L), which mainly involves governments blocking said website.
There are a few articles within Category:Twitter controversies (T-H-L)
...and none involve school boards or cyberbullying cases involving Twitter; most involve government and/or celebrities and/or journalism and/or pranks. There should be a general article on Twitter controversies that include those that don't merit their own articles.
Yeah I agree, these articles could be a good place to build it around, as well as sources specific to cyberbullying, and abhorrent trending hashtags like "jadapose" and the revenge porn "Twitter Purge". Now that I think about it Twitter has been used for disgusting purposes.

I must agree. I wonder why such an article has not been made. There are articles on the criticism of Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and Reddit, but not Twitter (especially outside the context of governments).

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:16 pm

Twitter has not yet achieved stage one of the "criticism removal churn process" described by Kelly Martin here: link

Kelly Martin wrote:[...]Stage 1, move all criticisms into a "criticism of" section. Stage 2, split the criticisms off to their own article. Stage 3, get the criticism article trimmed as "one-sided". Stage 4, have the criticism article deleted and redirected back to the article.

Some articles have been through this cycle dozens of times.

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:41 am

mac wrote:Twitter has not yet achieved stage one of the "criticism removal churn process" described by Kelly Martin here: link

Kelly Martin wrote:[...]Stage 1, move all criticisms into a "criticism of" section. Stage 2, split the criticisms off to their own article. Stage 3, get the criticism article trimmed as "one-sided". Stage 4, have the criticism article deleted and redirected back to the article.

Some articles have been through this cycle dozens of times.

I've been reading the "Controversial Reddit communities" article history recently as it crosses over with some of my other... ahem... interests. It is interesting how these things are put together. I imagine as long as these websites are unpopular enough with Wikipedia editors the criticism article should remain undeleted.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:57 pm

There are enough Wikipedians who hold valid grudges on Google (including YouTube), Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Reddit, and Wikipedia itself, but not Twitter or TV Tropes. Facebook is on many Wikipedians' grudge lists, which is why Criticism of Facebook (T-H-L) is very long; it even has an image linking Zuckerberg's year of birth with the title of Orwell's novel.

I find this very odd. Twitter is no doubt a top 10 website and of course would attract criticism, simply due to its popularity. However, there is nothing about cyberbullying cases involving Twitter (despite the fact that given its sheer popularity, it would be very unusual not to have any cyberbullying cases on Twitter at all) and nothing about controversial handles or hashtags. All criticism of Twitter mentioned on Wikipedia tends to be about government censorship, journalism, celebrities, or pranks, but nothing about cyberbullying, controversial handles, controversial hashtags, embarrassing tweets, or how every tweet is archived by the Library of Congress, including embarrassing and deleted tweets (and how that is a breach of privacy).

I bet that Twitter, given that its revenues doubled, increasing their share values by about 20%, and having 270 million active users, donated some of its profits to the WMF to cover all of this up. After all, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey lent some of the money he earned from Twitter to help fund Kickstarter.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:02 pm

Johnny Au wrote:I bet that Twitter... donated some of its profits to the WMF to cover all of this up.

I think there's about a 3% chance that you are correct.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:15 pm

thekohser wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:I bet that Twitter... donated some of its profits to the WMF to cover all of this up.
I think there's about a 3% chance that you are correct.

I like those odds. 3% is a huge number.

In a CNBC interview with the CEO of Twitter, 30% of the audience raised concerns about safety, privacy, and bullying on Twitter. The CEO responded that Twitter would have double verification (using text messages), just like Google. However, that does not address privacy or bullying concerns.

Many people died from tweets, the vast majority of which is unreported, as many are the result of cyberbullying and many victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying fear reporting incidents to authorities, even anonymously, since they believe in "no-snitching."

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:11 pm

Johnny Au wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:I bet that Twitter... donated some of its profits to the WMF to cover all of this up.
I think there's about a 3% chance that you are correct.

I like those odds. 3% is a huge number.

In a CNBC interview with the CEO of Twitter, 30% of the audience raised concerns about safety, privacy, and bullying on Twitter. The CEO responded that Twitter would have double verification (using text messages), just like Google. However, that does not address privacy or bullying concerns.

Many people died from tweets, the vast majority of which is unreported, as many are the result of cyberbullying and many victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying fear reporting incidents to authorities, even anonymously, since they believe in "no-snitching."

It doesn't help that the report function on Twitter is so unintuitive either, that and the fact that they rarely respond to harassment reports.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:17 pm

Drowninginlimbo wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:I bet that Twitter... donated some of its profits to the WMF to cover all of this up.
I think there's about a 3% chance that you are correct.

I like those odds. 3% is a huge number.

In a CNBC interview with the CEO of Twitter, 30% of the audience raised concerns about safety, privacy, and bullying on Twitter. The CEO responded that Twitter would have double verification (using text messages), just like Google. However, that does not address privacy or bullying concerns.

Many people died from tweets, the vast majority of which is unreported, as many are the result of cyberbullying and many victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying fear reporting incidents to authorities, even anonymously, since they believe in "no-snitching."
It doesn't help that the report function on Twitter is so unintuitive either, that and the fact that they rarely respond to harassment reports.

Twitter's inner circle is no different from Wikipedia's inner circle, full of admins who care about themselves and don't bother resolving harassment issues. Yes, that is a major failing of Twitter. Unintuitive reporting plus admins who don't care plus distrust of authority figures = culture of cyberbullying

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:35 pm

Vago Muradian, eminently notable correspondent at Defense News.

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:31 pm

Johnny Au wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote: It doesn't help that the report function on Twitter is so unintuitive either, that and the fact that they rarely respond to harassment reports.
Twitter's inner circle is no different from Wikipedia's inner circle, full of admins who care about themselves and don't bother resolving harassment issues. Yes, that is a major failing of Twitter. Unintuitive reporting plus admins who don't care plus distrust of authority figures = culture of cyberbullying

This could be promising: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... e-network/

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:50 pm

A lot of articles about places in the Middle East are not made yet, just look at Template:Nabatieh District (T-H-L) or Template:Bint Jbeil District (T-H-L). And many (if not most) of those red-linked places have a millennium or more of documented history.

And the articles which have been made are normally horrible: totally missing in sources.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Drowninginlimbo wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote: It doesn't help that the report function on Twitter is so unintuitive either, that and the fact that they rarely respond to harassment reports.
Twitter's inner circle is no different from Wikipedia's inner circle, full of admins who care about themselves and don't bother resolving harassment issues. Yes, that is a major failing of Twitter. Unintuitive reporting plus admins who don't care plus distrust of authority figures = culture of cyberbullying
This could be promising: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... e-network/

That is just public relations. It would not fix its problems (and fixing them may create new problems, such as privacy concerns). It is a little too late.