Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:39 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:35 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:21 pm
Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:05 pm
A bit late on this thread but as someone who spends a lot of time on Wikipedia, I would note that human error is always going to be a factor in any project dependent on human involvement. In this case millions of unpaid volunteers. And for the record, this user was pretty shady and ended up getting blocked for violating a lot of community policies and guidelines. It happens. I'm less concerned with intentionally disruptive editing and/or ordinary human error than I am with the long term decline in active participation. We have tens of millions of registered users, but for a variety of reasons, only a fraction are editing with any degree of regularity. Once upon a time the project was exciting and drew people from all over the world and every walk of life as they added material and new articles on topics ranging from the sinking of the Titanic to newly discovered micro-organisms. But today we have become a victim of our own success. With millions of articles, all the obvious big subjects are covered so we are left with more obscure topics likely to have a limited pool of interested editors who are willing to create and maintain the articles. Indeed, a lot of our current work revolves around maintenance and preservation which is a bit less exciting than authoring the article on your favorite music artist, because it probably already exists. Of course there is a ton of stuff that can and should be in the encyclopedia, but isn't yet, mainly due to a serious systemic bias towards recentism. All of which said, predictions of our imminent demise are overblown. We still have hundreds of thousands editing with great regularity on the English Wikipedia alone. Most of these are pretty dedicated and I don't see the project dropping to a level of participation that would be below the minimum needed to keep the lights on and the gears running.
I take it from what you have written above that you have been one of those active participants? I never have but consider it to be an incredibly valuable resource. Usually my first step for certain desired information. And, generally, consider it to be a fairly credible source. And, for certain, somewhere where you find certain information, not to be found anywhere else.

Vinny

Because anyone can edit the encyclopedia, including anonymously (w/o registering) there is always a risk that information may not be entirely accurate. We have an elaborate set of guidelines for editing but a lot of newer editors are understandably unaware and they just start typing stuff that they know to be true. That and the occasional incidents of deliberate vandalism are among the reasons why we are always careful to avoid any claim to being a "reliable source." In general your mileage is going to vary. Articles on popular and important subjects have lots of editors watching them and any edits that don't conform to our requirements for verifiability and proper sourcing are quickly reverted with a polite (hopefully) note left on the user's talk page explaining how we operate. We have also gotten very good at detecting (often with bots) deliberate vandalism and/or disinformation. Unfortunately articles on more obscure topics can be more vulnerable. My rule of thumb is to look at the sourcing. The more heavily sourced an article, the more likely it is to be accurate.

P.S. Yes, I've been active for close to a decade on the project.
So from me you get a BIG "Thank YOU for YOUR service!!!". I deeply appreciate both time you spend on it and all others. Particularly since I'm a user who does not contribute any of my own time. Probably the biggest thing I like about it is when I look up anything regarding rock music and know there is absolutely NOWHERE else I can be reading what I am reading.

And, there are tons of instances in the "reviewed" "mainstream" sources whereby one thing was cited (erroneously) and then everyone subsequently refers to and relies on it. And, it could be years or ever decades before that original error is uncovered. I'm thinking that it is possible that Wikipedia with all the people involved could possibly be even better at this (correcting errors)?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:42 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:46 pm
Xan wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:39 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:18 pm
dualstow wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:25 am
Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance
Obscure articles like this are what make Wikipedia great, but they are also most at risk under the current bureaucratic calcification. At some point, someone replaced the entire article with copy-paste text from a book. That triggered a bot that flagged the article as a copyright violation.
That in turn prompted an editor called KDS4444 to log the article for speedy deletion without bothering to check the article history.
http://boingboing.net/2017/02/14/watchi ... incti.html


So true. I see it all the time. Sad.
Seems like what you still can get at WIkipedia and nowhere else still makes it a valuable resource?

Vinny
Being the sole place for information is explicitly not the goal or purpose of an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is never the sole source for information since our guidelines require that all claims of fact that are not obviously uncontroversial, must be cited to a reliable source. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen. But that is the theory and especially with potentially controversial claims we really do try to push the citations required bit. What separates us from the other sources, is that we are almost always the most accessible. Literally anybody in the world with uncensored access to the internet can pop in and find what they are looking for with a few clicks. And it is free. I consider Wikipedia to be one of the wonders of the modern world.
To clarify my statement. It goes without saying that what is in Wikipedia needs to be documented. My reference is to how all these various bits of (documented) information are weaved into one encyclopedia entry which cannot be found anywhere else.

And, agree. Definitely...."one of the wonders of the modern world." NOT perfect but quite excellent!

VInny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by Libertarian666 » Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:11 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:46 pm
Xan wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:39 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:18 pm
dualstow wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:25 am
Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance
Obscure articles like this are what make Wikipedia great, but they are also most at risk under the current bureaucratic calcification. At some point, someone replaced the entire article with copy-paste text from a book. That triggered a bot that flagged the article as a copyright violation.
That in turn prompted an editor called KDS4444 to log the article for speedy deletion without bothering to check the article history.
http://boingboing.net/2017/02/14/watchi ... incti.html


So true. I see it all the time. Sad.
Seems like what you still can get at WIkipedia and nowhere else still makes it a valuable resource?

Vinny
Being the sole place for information is explicitly not the goal or purpose of an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is never the sole source for information since our guidelines require that all claims of fact that are not obviously uncontroversial, must be cited to a reliable source. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen. But that is the theory and especially with potentially controversial claims we really do try to push the citations required bit. What separates us from the other sources, is that we are almost always the most accessible. Literally anybody in the world with uncensored access to the internet can pop in and find what they are looking for with a few clicks. And it is free. I consider Wikipedia to be one of the wonders of the modern world.
Wikipedia is extremely biased politically. Here is an article providing just a few examples: https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php ... _Wikipedia

Note that I'm not a Christian and don't agree with all of the positions in that article.
However, I have personal experience with some of the very odd decisions on "notability" that Wikipedia collectively makes.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:44 pm

RE Bias: Wikipedia is a perpetual target of criticism that it is biased. Institutionally it is not. But as a matter of reality the people who edit it carry their own world views which will inevitably color the way they approach subjects, especially controversial ones. Open agenda oriented editing of the sort presented by entities like Conservapedia (thanks for that link) are not allowed and those who engage in egregiously POV editing will be shown the door. It's worth noting the difference between Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that attempts (not always successfully) to keep things nuetral and based on reliable sources on the one hand, and sites like Conservapedia which is a political propaganda website that seems to be OK with presenting fringe conspiracy theories as credible, on the other. Have I run into really serious bias? Yes, but not often. I had to sound the alarm back in 2017 over the article on Judge Roy Moore that had been rewritten in a way that would have embarrassed the DNC. It took a couple days of battling but it got sorted out. To the extent that some see prejudice in the project, especially left leaning bias, there are likely two main reasons. The first is the requirement that claims of fact be backed by independent reliable secondary sources. Breitbart and WND don't fall into that category. And the second is that content disputes are resolved by community consensus which is in turn determined by those who show up for the discussion. Since those on the political fringes have decided that it's easier to accuse the project of bias and stalk off than to engage in the discussions that settle how controversial subjects are presented, this can result in the field looking slanted. The bottomline, if you refuse to show up for the fight, I have little patience for those who whine about the outcome. And yes, I've lost my share of content disputes. But I've won some too. In my experience that's about as much as I can reasonably hope for in life.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by Libertarian666 » Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:03 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:44 pm
RE Bias: Wikipedia is a perpetual target of criticism that it is biased. Institutionally it is not. But as a matter of reality the people who edit it carry their own world views which will inevitably color the way they approach subjects, especially controversial ones. Open agenda oriented editing of the sort presented by entities like Conservapedia (thanks for that link) are not allowed and those who engage in egregiously POV editing will be shown the door. It's worth noting the difference between Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that attempts (not always successfully) to keep things nuetral and based on reliable sources on the one hand, and sites like Conservapedia which is a political propaganda website that seems to be OK with presenting fringe conspiracy theories as credible, on the other. Have I run into really serious bias? Yes, but not often. I had to sound the alarm back in 2017 over the article on Judge Roy Moore that had been rewritten in a way that would have embarrassed the DNC. It took a couple days of battling but it got sorted out. To the extent that some see prejudice in the project, especially left leaning bias, there are likely two main reasons. The first is the requirement that claims of fact be backed by independent reliable secondary sources. Breitbart and WND don't fall into that category. And the second is that content disputes are resolved by community consensus which is in turn determined by those who show up for the discussion. Since those on the political fringes have decided that it's easier to accuse the project of bias and stalk off than to engage in the discussions that settle how controversial subjects are presented, this can result in the field looking slanted. The bottomline, if you refuse to show up for the fight, I have little patience for those who whine about the outcome. And yes, I've lost my share of content disputes. But I've won some too. In my experience that's about as much as I can reasonably hope for in life.
Tl;dr: extremely biased encyclopedia entries are fine if they are biased to the left.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by Libertarian666 » Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:15 pm

Let’s say a person has a dozen books published by major publishers, three of which have been translated into other languages, dozens of articles in trade publications, and is the first inventor on a us patent.

Would that make him notable? Not according to Wikipedia. I wonder why not?

Asking for a friend, of course. >:D
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:25 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:15 pm
Let’s say a person has a dozen books published by major publishers, three of which have been translated into other languages, dozens of articles in trade publications, and is the first inventor on a us patent.

Would that make him notable? Not according to Wikipedia. I wonder why not?

Asking for a friend, of course. >:D

I can't comment on the specifics w/o knowing more details and seeing the sources. But it's very possible. The basic guidelines for biographies are here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... c_criteria

Specific guidelines for encyclopedic notability for authors are here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... fessionals
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:05 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:11 pm
Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:46 pm
Xan wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:39 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:18 pm
dualstow wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:25 am
Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance
Obscure articles like this are what make Wikipedia great, but they are also most at risk under the current bureaucratic calcification. At some point, someone replaced the entire article with copy-paste text from a book. That triggered a bot that flagged the article as a copyright violation.
That in turn prompted an editor called KDS4444 to log the article for speedy deletion without bothering to check the article history.
http://boingboing.net/2017/02/14/watchi ... incti.html


So true. I see it all the time. Sad.
Seems like what you still can get at WIkipedia and nowhere else still makes it a valuable resource?

Vinny
Being the sole place for information is explicitly not the goal or purpose of an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is never the sole source for information since our guidelines require that all claims of fact that are not obviously uncontroversial, must be cited to a reliable source. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen. But that is the theory and especially with potentially controversial claims we really do try to push the citations required bit. What separates us from the other sources, is that we are almost always the most accessible. Literally anybody in the world with uncensored access to the internet can pop in and find what they are looking for with a few clicks. And it is free. I consider Wikipedia to be one of the wonders of the modern world.
Wikipedia is extremely biased politically. Here is an article providing just a few examples: https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php ... _Wikipedia

Note that I'm not a Christian and don't agree with all of the positions in that article.
However, I have personal experience with some of the very odd decisions on "notability" that Wikipedia collectively makes.
Generally for the rock music entries for which I value the most there is generally little political content in them. My assumption is that they'd be written by those who are great appreciators of the musician or group.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:09 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:44 pm
RE Bias: Wikipedia is a perpetual target of criticism that it is biased. Institutionally it is not. But as a matter of reality the people who edit it carry their own world views which will inevitably color the way they approach subjects, especially controversial ones. Open agenda oriented editing of the sort presented by entities like Conservapedia (thanks for that link) are not allowed and those who engage in egregiously POV editing will be shown the door. It's worth noting the difference between Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that attempts (not always successfully) to keep things nuetral and based on reliable sources on the one hand, and sites like Conservapedia which is a political propaganda website that seems to be OK with presenting fringe conspiracy theories as credible, on the other. Have I run into really serious bias? Yes, but not often. I had to sound the alarm back in 2017 over the article on Judge Roy Moore that had been rewritten in a way that would have embarrassed the DNC. It took a couple days of battling but it got sorted out. To the extent that some see prejudice in the project, especially left leaning bias, there are likely two main reasons. The first is the requirement that claims of fact be backed by independent reliable secondary sources. Breitbart and WND don't fall into that category. And the second is that content disputes are resolved by community consensus which is in turn determined by those who show up for the discussion. Since those on the political fringes have decided that it's easier to accuse the project of bias and stalk off than to engage in the discussions that settle how controversial subjects are presented, this can result in the field looking slanted. The bottomline, if you refuse to show up for the fight, I have little patience for those who whine about the outcome. And yes, I've lost my share of content disputes. But I've won some too. In my experience that's about as much as I can reasonably hope for in life.
My analogy would be the C-Span callers who accuse the host of being biased. And, this comes from both sides - the liberals and the conservatives. Which, in the end. probably means that they are doing their job well of playing it as close as possible down the middle. But to those with a fair amount of slant one way or the other, either a fair or objective manner is going to look like a slant opposite to their slant.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:11 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:15 pm
Let’s say a person has a dozen books published by major publishers, three of which have been translated into other languages, dozens of articles in trade publications, and is the first inventor on a us patent.

Would that make him notable? Not according to Wikipedia. I wonder why not?

Asking for a friend, of course. >:D
Are you saying that because there is no Wikipedia entry on that person? Am I incorrect that anyone is free to start a Wikipedia entry on anything and any person? And, a person can start one on him- herself? I'm also assuming that they would be subject to Wikipedia's rules for substantiation of any "facts" presented.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:12 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:05 pm

Generally for the rock music entries for which I value the most there is generally little political content in them. My assumption is that they'd be written by those who are great appreciators of the musician or group.

Vinny

WikiProject Music...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ject_Music
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:14 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:11 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:15 pm
Let’s say a person has a dozen books published by major publishers, three of which have been translated into other languages, dozens of articles in trade publications, and is the first inventor on a us patent.

Would that make him notable? Not according to Wikipedia. I wonder why not?

Asking for a friend, of course. >:D
Are you saying that because there is no Wikipedia entry on that person? Am I incorrect that anyone is free to start a Wikipedia entry on anything and any person? And, a person can start one on him- herself? I'm also assuming that they would be subject to Wikipedia's rules for substantiation of any "facts" presented.

Vinny

Creating or editing articles about yourself or someone you have a connection to is strongly discouraged. See WP:COI...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... f_interest
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:20 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:12 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:05 pm

Generally for the rock music entries for which I value the most there is generally little political content in them. My assumption is that they'd be written by those who are great appreciators of the musician or group.

Vinny

WikiProject Music...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ject_Music
Would one find things here that one cannot find in a general Wikipedia search?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:22 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:14 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:11 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:15 pm
Let’s say a person has a dozen books published by major publishers, three of which have been translated into other languages, dozens of articles in trade publications, and is the first inventor on a us patent.

Would that make him notable? Not according to Wikipedia. I wonder why not?

Asking for a friend, of course. >:D
Are you saying that because there is no Wikipedia entry on that person? Am I incorrect that anyone is free to start a Wikipedia entry on anything and any person? And, a person can start one on him- herself? I'm also assuming that they would be subject to Wikipedia's rules for substantiation of any "facts" presented.

Vinny

Creating or editing articles about yourself or someone you have a connection to is strongly discouraged. See WP:COI...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... f_interest
Had ZERO idea regarding this? Has this been in place since the start of Wikipedia or near its start?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:43 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:20 pm
Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:12 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:05 pm

Generally for the rock music entries for which I value the most there is generally little political content in them. My assumption is that they'd be written by those who are great appreciators of the musician or group.

Vinny

WikiProject Music...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ject_Music
Would one find things here that one cannot find in a general Wikipedia search?

Vinny
It's mostly a forum for editors interested in editing music related articles. General facts and the like are going to be mostly in the articles in the mainspace.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:46 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:22 pm
Ad Orientem wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:14 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:11 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:15 pm
Let’s say a person has a dozen books published by major publishers, three of which have been translated into other languages, dozens of articles in trade publications, and is the first inventor on a us patent.

Would that make him notable? Not according to Wikipedia. I wonder why not?

Asking for a friend, of course. >:D
Are you saying that because there is no Wikipedia entry on that person? Am I incorrect that anyone is free to start a Wikipedia entry on anything and any person? And, a person can start one on him- herself? I'm also assuming that they would be subject to Wikipedia's rules for substantiation of any "facts" presented.

Vinny

Creating or editing articles about yourself or someone you have a connection to is strongly discouraged. See WP:COI...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... f_interest
Had ZERO idea regarding this? Has this been in place since the start of Wikipedia or near its start?

Vinny

It's been around for a long time. Not sure exactly when. The project started from scratch. Almost all of the policies and guidelines have developed organically as the community came around to the need for them.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:48 pm

And while I'm on the subject of community projects...

WikiProject Conservatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nservatism
Post Reply