advertising
August 17, 2014 • 5:56
<- Title -> <- Subtitle -> <- // Updated at: 06/13/2014 // -> <- TESTING TO INCLUDE // BBC AUTHOR // -> <- BBC // E - INI // -> <- BBC // E - FIM // ->
BBC
There is no doubt that fans of Wikipedia has much to be welcomed: after all, in the words of a devotee, the online encyclopedia has become “part of the plumbing of society”
But behind the scenes there is a world of cyber. constant quarrels, in which some site publishers grapple “battles to the death” with incredibly vain issues, as he tells the BBC David Gerard, a veteran contributor.
refers to the infamous “wars edition “, in which volunteers who spend hours creating and watching -cariñosamente Wikipedia known as wikipedistas- faced by details contained in the more than 30 million pages of the site.
For starters, Wikipedians are divided into two fields:
the “incluistas”, who believe that the more information is on the site, the better, even if the facts are not as well supported as a result, and “suprimistas” who prefer only the most relevant and fully verifiable facts aparezcan.Por this heated debate about whether there is a sport or Flo’Ball not -¿el fact that a handful of people playing it appears on YouTube supposedly counts as’ reliable coverage – and if an article fights the Nazis in space should appear on Wikipedia -is a familiar topic of alternative historical fiction science fiction or just a silly conspiracy theory -.
Knut Adorable
In addition to the many philosophical wrangling, most conflicts are focused on how to interpret the guidelines of Wikipedia.
The PVN or neutral standpoint orders Wikipedians write “fair, proportionate and, as far possible, without bias. “
So far, so good.
Except when it comes to polar bear cubs.
Wikipedia’s devotees have been discutiendo–and discussing and arguing about whether to describe an animal or a baby as “adorable” violates the rules of the online encyclopedia.
After all, being lovable is subjective and what a man ( and usually it is a man in the wiki universe) seems cute, the other was left unmoved.
The dispute over the “adorable” reached new levels in a war of publishers caption an image that showed Knut, the polar bear born in the Berlin zoo in 2006 Finally the decision to remove the word was taken.
Less adorable, equally controversial
But that has not been by any means the only issues these wars, although some consider trivial, have dragged on for years.
Should the ‘I’ of “Star Trek Into Darkness” ( Star Trek: in the dark) be capitalized
U2 is an Irish band or just a band in Ireland
Is Jennifer Aniston or American born in the United States? Could it be more or until Greek-American Greek-and-English-American
Istanbul is not Constantinople, but in English, do Istambul Istambul or write? Notice the difference? Is the controversial Dot the I
Some of the disputes are more noble reasons, as the ebb and whether the page in which you talk about arachnophobia image of a spider should appear.
“Too many disputes”
The relentless nature of these discussions discourages many new editors and, crucially, many publishers participate in the site.
Wikipedia desperately needs more new recruits varied profiles. Editors ratio is between 8% and 15%. In addition, most Wikipedians are “Western” countries and technophiles.
Roberta Wedge a Wikipedian, down the pace of your activity on the site because he got tired “of some of the attitudes editors “.
” There are too many disputes behind the scenes and that’s not productive or helpful, “he tells the BBC.
A Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, is concerned about the situation demographic but even supports many programs to get a more diverse group of editors, insists that the conflicting nature of the community of Wikipedians is beneficial.
“Define exactly where to draw the line is a complex issue and I’ve always wanted the community to continue having these debates, “he argues,” for the time quit is the moment you start to make mistakes, “
No comments:
Post a Comment