Now the security implications are even greater, and we won't even have funny screenshots to share in the future.
Now the security implications are even greater, and we won't even have funny screenshots to share in the future.
I'm sure both of you understand this. I'm guessing it's just semantics.
Most volunteers on Wikipedia do an excellent job, but sometimes the absence of traditional editorial structures shows its limitations.
Imagine being an editor of Britannica. Without having domain knowledge into absolutely everything, you are forced to trust domain experts.
Wikipedia has a marked advantage when it comes to building that trust, as the articles have been written under public scrutiny and with a great deal of discussion.
What else are you looking for with "traditional editorial structures"? Consistency in quality and completeness, which Wikipedia lacks. However, whenever an article has lower standards, Wikipedia is happy to point that out to the reader, and allow further refinement. A more traditional encyclopedia would simply omit the article entirely.
I'm not really seeing what a traditional editorial structure would be gaining anyone, seems like it would just be a smaller encyclopedia.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
I'm honestly disappointed to see this flagged. What's the saying, "Even an SEO farm is right twice a day"?
However, using the goon squad to illegally intimidate and disenfranchise voters is a problem large enough that calling it a would-be distraction from the Epstein files is doing everyone a disservice.
We have to pay attention to more than one thing. Saying <blank> is just a distraction from <blank-2>, means that you're too distracted by <blank-2> and need to step back and look around at all the other horrors.
You have: 1 mile You want: kilometers * 1.609344 / 0.62137119
You have: 1 unit You want: 1.609344 units * 0.62137119 / 1.609344
The question of article quality has been studied from the very beginning. Wikipedia almost always wins.