There was a longish comment by a person who does design/UX work for Wikipedia about what a huge pain in the ass it was, getting everything AOK across hundreds of different language sites and all the rest. This was offered as a plausible explanation for why the site does not change its looks very often. I liked this comment and I think we mentioned it on a podcast. My Googling, it does nothing. Do you remember? [more inside]
There are lots of articles like this one posted to Metafilter where journalists try to aggregate scientific research and end up screwing up the conclusions. But this one is by Johann Hari, who is a deeply malicious falsifier. He's the British Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass. Normally I think we should evaluate articles without regard to their author, and indeed this article is being ably dismantled in the thread. But here we have a very smart person who has often bent his intelligence to unethical and self-serving ends. What's more, he's now doing the "overblown science reporting" thing that is harder to catch because we want it to be true. Let's stick with the actual neuroscientists on this topic, like Carl Hart.
Out of curiosity (or work deadline avoidance), anyone know why the MetaFilter entry on Wikipedia suddenly get a lot more "readership" or views than normal for the five days of January 5th to 9th inclusive, then suddenly go back down to the previous background level? [more inside]
Can we strip the 'm' from links to Wikipedia? In a recent post there was a link to a Wikipedia page that went directly to the mobile site. If your on a mobile device you would automatically get the mobile version so there is no reason to force people on non-mobile devices to it. [more inside]
Let's do something about SOPA/PIPA. [more inside]
Perhaps we could share knowledge, and not just links to Wikipedia? [more inside]
Today's XKCD strip links to a nonexistent Wikipedia word "malamanteau." Apparently its only prior use was in a 2007 AskMe answer by ludwig_van. There's a bit of controversy on the Wikipedia talk page over a dismissal of MeFi as an "unused website."
NYT Mag on Wikipedia as Breaking News Source. Three years ago, MeFi was the place this stuff went down, in my web at any rate. I miss it, and prefer MetaFilter's style of developing breaking news to Wikipedia's. But I understand the orientation that led Matt away from it, and God knows it's more efficient than reading through an entire thread in the blue to figure out where things stand as of the time you loaded the page. Posting this here seems more in tune than in the blue, yes?
VideoFilter Debate: Take 42 - I like Tom Waits. A lot. But YouTube and a link to Wikipedia? Hardly the best of the web.
Has it become acceptable to copy paste a wikipedia article, shuffle the links around a bit and make an FPP out of it, or did this one just go under the radar?
I made a FPP (Stern Review of global warming) linking to Wikipedia using the ^ - for stylistic reasons, I wanted to emphasis the second link in the FPP and not the Wikipedia link, which is the first link, and so wanted to keep it small and unobtrusive. Someone< ?> then changed it and made it a full link. Is there a style-policy? Is it documented anywhere?>
Okay I get why my question was deleted. Would it be okay to repost it as 'are overseas webhosts protected from US Copyright enforcers?'
Suggestion: In lieu of the infamous carets, or the oft-suggested WIKI, wouldn't a [see also] notation be more effective solution? It would certainly be in keeping with the continuity of the site's layout and design.
For the big pile of stuff: How about a wikipedia-style "Mefi posts that link to this post" box on the side of each thread (that has been linked back to)? So when someone links back to a post, that old post now links forward to the new thread. Especially useful if you search and find an older thread, and would like also to read the subsequent threads which say "previously discussed on MetaFilter..." Ideally, it would pick up on comments as well as posts that link to a specific thread (not to a specific comment in the thread, though).
The metafilter wikipedia article has a slight disagreement over the possible inferences between MeFi's color Blue, "Red/Blue" states, and MeFi's general left-leaning politics - what do you think?
I want to post some links over on the Filter about an obscure topic. However, due to its obscurity, some of the links would be Wiki articles that I previously created. Would this count as self-promotion, or would it be accetable to do such? Should I simply do my best to work around them?
Matt, can you please add Wikipedia to the list of places to check on the AskMe post a question page? A number of times, I've noticed perfectly cromulent answers were in there. In fact, I bet Mefites can suggest at least a couple other "check here first" sources.
Metafilter article at the Wikipedia. I've just updated that membership is back up, but is anything else missing?
This comment directs us to brainyencyclopedia.com which presents a thourough, detailed biography of Stanislaw Lem. Of course, it's a copied Wikipedia article.
Eloquence posts a thread about Mother Teresa, in which he writes, "the Wikipedia article about her gives a much more balanced picture than most media reports." Trouble is, a Wikipedia member named -- wait for it -- Eloquence is a substantial contributor to that very Wikipedia article, and has, as far as I can tell (see article history), written much of the material about the controversy. (See also his contributions to the related Talk page.) This could be considered a self link as a result. Is it?