Wikipedia Sucks!

A 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.

The 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.

ericbarbour wrote:This was incredibly stupid:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39589013

A 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 ... =773838067
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =774926797
Joseph 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.shtml

The 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.

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.