As usual, the Metafilteroids had "opinions". Usually stupid ones.
Wikipedia rules are pretty well laid out.
Still no comment on how Metafilter's founder and moderators ganged up and wrote their own Wikipedia bios.
Wikipedia rules are pretty well laid out.
Quicksilver is a spinoff from tools and data that Primer uses to serve clients including US intelligence agencies and large finance companies.
Eh? History has shown they have no such record of due diligence, and you typically learn about these issues when someone suddenly shrieks 'holy shit, this person has done this bad thing fifty billion times and I only noticed by accident, what shall we do now?' The result usually being a mass fight between those who want to blow it all up, and those who want to fix it all.Wikipedia’s notoriously punctilious community will likely keep a close eye on content generated with Quicksilver’s help.
Naturally, no details were given as to what, specifically, editors like Wade are authorised to do, to somehow workaround the inherent biases in the reliable sources Wikipedia treats as sacrosanct. Other than tilting the table at AfD, of course.One question is whether this tool aimed at fixing blind spots has any blind spots of its own. Wade has already noticed that the tool’s suggestions seem skewed towards Americans, echoing a shortcoming of Wikipedia itself. “We need to be super careful that we’re not passing on whatever biases are in that machine-learning system,” says Wade.
CrowsNest wrote:Can't disagree, but the obsession with the WMF is misplaced. Believe it or not, they know a lot, way more than the volunteers. They know who edits Wikipedia and why, and crucially, why not. They're just not in a position to effect change. Not when, by design, change to policy and culture comes from editors. The reason they're fixated on creating more women bios, or rather helping to promote the fact this is happening and running events to do it, is because they know it is the most effective thing they can do, within the constraints of their operations. Three things stop women editors, lack of time, lack of confidence and the toxic culture. Outside of extremely inefficient RL events and pumping out bullshit PR, the WMF has little to no chance of effecting any of those things, because they are so bound up in the community.
Here's an idea. Do it yourself. Or did that not occur to you, as a member of a volunteer collaboration looking to build a knowledge database?It almost looks like the Primer team didn't pay attention to the academic notability guidelines, relying instead on Big Data to figure out what "notability" means in practice. This is an intriguing idea from one perspective, but it might be suboptimal for actually finding new subjects for articles. Why not just make a list of every woman who holds a named chair, is or has been editor-in-chief of a journal, or has an h-index over 20? Articles created from that list would stand a much better chance of surviving the process here than those from a list made by sifting random news sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
CrowsNest wrote:[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854509324
Look at this numbnuts......Here's an idea. Do it yourself. Or did that not occur to you, as a member of a volunteer collaboration looking to build a knowledge database?It almost looks like the Primer team didn't pay attention to the academic notability guidelines, relying instead on Big Data to figure out what "notability" means in practice. This is an intriguing idea from one perspective, but it might be suboptimal for actually finding new subjects for articles. Why not just make a list of every woman who holds a named chair, is or has been editor-in-chief of a journal, or has an h-index over 20? Articles created from that list would stand a much better chance of surviving the process here than those from a list made by sifting random news sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)