User:Germanboi87/sandbox
Milk and honey
[edit]Reliability of Wikipedia
[edit]1. https://pattayaone.news/en/wikipedia-reliable-credible/ In this article they come to the conclusion, that Wikipedia is indeed not reliable and trustworthy. Their major arguments are:
- Editors that have an agenda always win if they prevail. They just have to keep being persistent.
- There are some administrators on Wikipedia with high-class authority that have the power to delete and disallow comments on topics they do not disagree with.
- The number of active Wikipedia users is declining.
- It is hard for new editors to contribute, as new content is sometimes rather quickly removed before questions were even asked about it.
- Vandalism can occur at any time, and might not be detected for weeks or months.
- Wikipedia themselves say that it's not a reliable source.
2. https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/in_defense_of_wikipedia.php This article is defending Wikipedia, saying it is not as unreliable as it is portrayed. Their major arguments are:
- In the beginning they name a few cases where people suffered from content on Wikipedia
- They mention that false information on Wikipedia is usually removed in minutes.
- The amount of articles and amount of information that is available on Wikipedia is way more information than print or broadcast could spread.
- They claim that Wikipedia's content is quite good, especially if you search for basic factual information.
- The fact that everyone can edit Wikipedia is actually a good thing because more brains mean more knowledge.
- They mention that it is a problem that users can remain anonymous, but they say that the more rules for producing content you create, the less content you will actually get.
- They also say that mistakes or false information do not have as much of an impact as mistakes published by major news outlets.
- They claim Wikipedia is the future source for information on the internet.
Vandalism
[edit]This user wrote something that is clearly untrue, because he was trying to be funny. He got blocked already if I'm not mistaken.
Another user that was trying to be funny. He has actually committed vandalism on multiple occasions.
This user removed an entire article because he thinks it is unworthy. He is also insulting.
Women on the Internet
[edit]https://psmag.com/social-justice/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170
In the article "Why Women Aren't Welcomed on the Internet", Amanda Hess talks about all kinds of abuses, women have to encounter while being online. Personally, she has received rape and death threats since 2009. She is a female journalists who writes about sex, and apparently there are a lot of men, who are not happy about that. Recently, a twitter user with the name "headlessfemalepig", threatened to kill and rape her and remove her head. Disturbing things like this happen to women on the internet daily, and it affects their careers and their emotional well-being.
Unfortunately, it is hard for women to do anything about threats like this. Hess claims that not one case has been taken by the FBI, and when the local police is contacted, they often look the other way or do not know what to do. They also do not have the power and means to lead such an investigation, since online harassment can occur from everywhere around the world. In one particular case, Amanda Hess called the local police, and the officer refused to file a report. She was told to just "log off" and ignore it, it was most likely nothing.
Comments like this make it difficult for women what they should believe. Should they just ignore it and hope for the best, or should they file every incident with law enforces, even though that won't help either in most cases. Something definitely needs to be done, because telling them to ignore it is a horrible solution. It is telling them to stop doing what they like, and it is also a form of discrimination. Because of harassment like this, women have smaller chances to pursue a career online. It affects their whole life, online as well as offline, and something has got to change!
Featured article evaluation and quality control
[edit]Summarized issues and how they were resolved
[edit]- A picture that might have been a copyright violation was removed.
- Only some names in captions were linked, nominator removed all links.
- The order of sentences was improved a couple of times.
- Important missing content on Ruth, the New York Mets, their attitude towards black players, and the effect of 9/11 was added.
- A few baseball concepts, like losing season were linked or explained for better understanding.
- Sports-speak was removed.
- To break up the flow of seasons and results, and to make the read easier, the nominator inserted some comment like public opinions or words of critics.
- a few words were changed to avoid proseline.
- Unneeded phrases were removed.
- A singular/plural issue for the noun New York was removed.
- A source review was done.
- The size of an image was fixed.
Number of reviewers and depth of reviews
[edit]There were 6 reviewers, two of which reviewed the article completely and in great detail. Those two, User:Sarastro1 and User:Wehwalt seem to have a lot of experience in reviewing and promoting articles to FAs.
Congratulations to @Giants2008: on a great article! Very good job! Germanboi87 (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
DYK nomination
[edit]sandbox
- ... that the first official Baseball game in Germany took place under the Nazi regime at the 1936 Summer Olympics and the attendance of 125,000 was the largest in history for any baseball game? Source: Chetwynd, Josh (2008). Baseball in Europe. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. pp. 109–126.
Created by Germanboi87 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC).