Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
-
ericbarbour
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1428 times
- Been thanked: 2204 times
Post
by ericbarbour » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:30 pm
This was incredibly stupid:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39589013A Burger King TV advert which was designed to activate Google Home smart speakers and some Android phones to describe its Whopper burgers has been hijacked by members of the public. The ad triggered the devices to read out information about the burgers from online encyclopaedia Wikipedia.
However, somebody edited Wikipedia to describe the Whopper as the "worst hamburger product" and another added cyanide to the list of ingredients. The BBC understands the ad was blocked. Google did not publicly confirm this, saying only that it had "no involvement" in the campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =773838067https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =774926797Joseph Seddon, Doc James, and other WP insiders showed up to editwar it. Still no mention of former Burger King employee Jerem43 performing hundreds of edits on it since 2006.....
Meanwhile this was barely noticed:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170 ... nary.shtmlThe appeals court denied the magazine's anti-SLAPP motion in part because it held the term "Welfare Queen," as informed by the Wikipedia entry, could be defamatory. The Texas Supreme Court affirms the anti-SLAPP denial, but it also criticizes the appeals court for not sufficiently examining the entire article's gist. Along the way, the court opines on the credibility and validity of Wikipedia as a dictionary. TL;DR = the Supreme Court says don't treat Wikipedia like a dictionary.
-
Flip Flopped
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post
by Flip Flopped » Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:10 am
ericbarbour wrote:This was incredibly stupid:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39589013A Burger King TV advert which was designed to activate Google Home smart speakers and some Android phones to describe its Whopper burgers has been hijacked by members of the public. The ad triggered the devices to read out information about the burgers from online encyclopaedia Wikipedia.
However, somebody edited Wikipedia to describe the Whopper as the "worst hamburger product" and another added cyanide to the list of ingredients. The BBC understands the ad was blocked. Google did not publicly confirm this, saying only that it had "no involvement" in the campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =773838067https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =774926797Joseph Seddon, Doc James, and other WP insiders showed up to editwar it. Still no mention of former Burger King employee Jerem43 performing hundreds of edits on it since 2006.....
Meanwhile this was barely noticed:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170 ... nary.shtmlThe appeals court denied the magazine's anti-SLAPP motion in part because it held the term "Welfare Queen," as informed by the Wikipedia entry, could be defamatory. The Texas Supreme Court affirms the anti-SLAPP denial, but it also criticizes the appeals court for not sufficiently examining the entire article's gist. Along the way, the court opines on the credibility and validity of Wikipedia as a dictionary. TL;DR = the Supreme Court says don't treat Wikipedia like a dictionary.
Seddon appears to have made most of his "Whopper" article edits in his role as a WMF employee. Sounds like PR for the WMF to me.
The TechDirt article has an interesting ending:
As bad as things are between Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary as online dictionaries, things are much worse with emojis because no credible dictionary is trying to provide definitive definitions of emojis. Eventually, as I'll argue in my paper, we'll need the equivalent of an Urban Dictionary for emojis to capture their disparate meanings across online subcommunities.
