User talk:Chenzw/Archives/Jun 2015
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
If you find this page on a site that is not Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The page may be old and the owner of this page may not have a relationship with sites that are not Wikipedia. The original page is located at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chenzw/Archives/Jun_2015. |
This is the User talk page for Chenzw, where you can send messages and comments to Chenzw. |
|
|
The Signpost: 03 June 2015[change source]
- News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out
- Blog: How Wikipedia covered Caitlyn Jenner’s transition
- Discussion report: The deprecation of Persondata; RfA – A broken process; Complaints from users on Swedish Wikipedia
- Special report: Towards "Health Information for All": Medical content on Wikipedia received 6.5 billion page views in 2013
- In the media: Anonymous Australian editing targets football player, shooting victim
- Traffic report: A rather ordinary week
- Featured content: It's not over till the fat man sings
- Technology report: Things are getting SPDYier
Something needs to be done[change source]
Since 2007 I have been reading and enjoying wikipedia. I am not a wiki user. I am too old to learn how to edit and do not want to learn. I would rather read. Wiki over the years has been my go to source for news. It has helped me to form opinions on topics. Gave me reference points for my ideas. However three times this past year alone I have come across a horrible trend that has made me lose faith in wiki in general. Three current events I have went to grab the facts about in this past year and all I come across is conspiracy theories and the one site all three had in common was Snopes. I have problems with this for more reason than one.
I came for REAL TRUE FACTUAL information. We do not have anything on the actual event but have a snopes sponsored conspiracy already? If I wanted to read the dribble on Snopes I will go to snopes. This is wiki. I expect to have FACTS.
Snopes is ran by a husband and wife team. They have no one inside the military. They are not military. They are not spies inside the military. They do not know any spies inside the military. These people can not debunk anything or substantiate anything regarding the military. Using them as a source is just plain lazy.
Snopes is mentioned Thousands and thousands and thousands of times on wiki. They are not experts in anything. Most of thew work is plagiarized. Yet wiki links to this without any problems.
Snopes have editors in Wiki hijacking events to promote there site. Rather or not this is true is really hard to tell. It is about as true as anything they write on there site. I have no proof, expertise or knowledge yet I am making this known as truth. See the problem here? Is this now what wiki is about? Laziness and false truths?
It is of my opinion one way to stop this is stop allowing conspiracy theories of events as main articles. Whole articles just for a conspiracy theory on one event is pretty insane.
I do not know how to change or even if I can get anything changed. It said you are an Admin and I can only hope that maybe just maybe you might care enough to look at the problem. As I am seriously at my wits end. I do not know the process of how to go about changing things but figured you would and if you care you can see the big big problem here. Look google shows 22k results when you search the wikipedia site for snopes. You think those references where all earned? It is being spammed. Well it is out of my hands in your hands. I did what I thought was right and notified an Admin. 24.96.69.3 (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi 24.96.69.3, I am an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia (here) and not the English Wikipedia. Because I am not an active editor on the English Wikipedia and am unfamiliar with the community consensus on this and related matters, it is not convenient for me to bring up the issue over there. I understand that you are probably frustrated of the problems currently occurring at Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory? From what I can see in the current version of the article, Snopes was actually referenced in the article to debunk the conspiracy, so I am not quite sure now what you are trying to point me to. Please feel free to raise your concerns at WP:RSN if you still have issues. I am sorry that I could not be of more assistance in this matter. Chenzw Talk 14:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 June 2015[change source]
- News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief
- Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity
- In the media: Arbitration case attracts media coverage; Wikipedia in Israel
- Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am
- Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only
- Blog: Making Wikipedia’s medical articles accessible in Chinese
The Signpost: 17 June 2015[change source]
- Arbitration report: An election has consequences
- Discussion report: A quick way of becoming an admin
- Featured content: Great Dane hits 150
- In focus: Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe
- In the media: Wikipedia wins Asturias Prize; printing out Wikipedia; HTTPS switch
- Interview: A veteran’s Wikipedia edits help him understand the brutality behind Yugoslavia’s wars
- News and notes: Labs outage kills tools, self; news in brief
- Op-ed: Making a difference in Wikipedia, one GA at a time
- Technology report: HTTPS-only rollout completed, proposal to enable VisualEditor for new accounts
- WikiProject report: We are back - Western Australia speaks
The Signpost: 24 June 2015[change source]
- From the editor: The Signpost tagging initiative
- Op-ed: Content Translation beta is coming to the English Wikipedia
- News and notes: Board of Trustees propose bylaw amendments
- In the media: Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
- Special report: Small impact of the large Google Translation Project on Telugu Wikipedia
- Recent research: How Wikipedia built governance capability; readability of plastic surgery articles
- Featured content: One eye when begun, two when it's done
- Blog: 7,473 volumes at 700 pages each: meet Print Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Politics by other means: The American politics 2 arbitration
- Technology report: 2015 MediaWiki architecture focus and Multimedia roadmap announced