WHO To Grant Wikipedia Free Use of Its Published Material To Combat Covid Misinformation (nytimes.com) 51
As part of efforts to stop the spread of false information about the coronavirus pandemic, Wikipedia and the World Health Organization announced a collaboration on Thursday: The health agency will grant the online encyclopedia free use of its published information, graphics and videos. The collaboration is the first between Wikipedia and a health agency. From a report: "We all consult just a few apps in our daily life, and this puts W.H.O. content right there in your language, in your town, in a way that relates to your geography," said Andrew Pattison, a digital content manager for the health agency who helped negotiate the contract. "Getting good content out quickly disarms the misinformation." Since its start in 2001, Wikipedia has become one of the world's 10 most consulted sites; it is frequently viewed for health information. The agreement puts much of the W.H.O.'s material into the Wikimedia "commons," meaning it can be reproduced or retranslated anywhere, without the need to seek permission -- as long as the material is identified as coming from the W.H.O. and a link to the original is included.
"Equitable access to trusted health information is critical to keeping people safe and informed," said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the W.H.O.'s director general. His agency translates its work into six official languages, which do not include, for example, Hindi, Bengali, German or Portuguese, so billions of people cannot read its documents in their native or even second language. Wikipedia articles, by contrast, are translated into about 175 languages. The first W.H.O. items used under the agreement are its "Mythbusters" infographics, which debunk more than two dozen false notions about Covid-19. Future additions could include, for example, treatment guidelines for doctors, said Ryan Merkley, chief of staff at the Wikimedia Foundation, which produces Wikipedia. If the arrangement works out, it could be extended to counter misinformation regarding AIDS, Ebola, influenza, polio and dozens of other diseases, Mr. Merkley said, "But this was something that just had to happen now." Eventually, live links will be established that would, for example, update global case and death numbers on Wikipedia as soon as the W.H.O. posts them, Mr. Pattison said.
"Equitable access to trusted health information is critical to keeping people safe and informed," said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the W.H.O.'s director general. His agency translates its work into six official languages, which do not include, for example, Hindi, Bengali, German or Portuguese, so billions of people cannot read its documents in their native or even second language. Wikipedia articles, by contrast, are translated into about 175 languages. The first W.H.O. items used under the agreement are its "Mythbusters" infographics, which debunk more than two dozen false notions about Covid-19. Future additions could include, for example, treatment guidelines for doctors, said Ryan Merkley, chief of staff at the Wikimedia Foundation, which produces Wikipedia. If the arrangement works out, it could be extended to counter misinformation regarding AIDS, Ebola, influenza, polio and dozens of other diseases, Mr. Merkley said, "But this was something that just had to happen now." Eventually, live links will be established that would, for example, update global case and death numbers on Wikipedia as soon as the W.H.O. posts them, Mr. Pattison said.
This is a game changer (Score:2, Funny)
Wikipedia used in election interference (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's stopping you?
Re: (Score:1)
Stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I dominate and control stupid people.
Re: Even though stupidity is quite abundant. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to tell you this but the person in the mirror is just a reflection. It isn't a real person.
Top Line Message (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
WHO has changed it's story so many times, surely the original version have to be misinformation, I mean if you change your story across the board, lethality, rate of infection, masks, shutdowns. Are not the first version of each element of their yarn, the continually changing sage of corona virus misinformation by WHO or are the latest lot of information out of WHO misinformation and the original is true.
Keep changing your story, then you yourself are distributing misinformation, which version of which par
Or (Score:2)
Just hear me out on this one, you could simply be wrong. Do you propose vetting wiki editors based on their voting histories?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's Larry Sanger, founder of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is badly biased [larrysanger.org].
"Wikipedia's "NPOV" is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call "false balance."2 The notion that we should avoid "false balance" is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipe
Re: (Score:1)
Read and learn something [rationalwiki.org].
Re: (Score:3)
There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call "false balance."2 The notion that we should avoid "false balance" is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
With false balance, we give equal weight to the geoid vs flat earthism, evolution vs creationism and the absorption spectra of CO2 vs whatever the hell the global warming deniers think it does (I don't know they always go quiet when
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
How about not having Wiki "editors". The point of the Wikipedia was to have freely accessible and editable information and get away from the hierarchy of editors in 'classic' encyclopedia like Brittanica. Wikipedia was explicitly developed to avoid the problem of editors and editor bias. When this went against the political ideals of the founders however, they quickly found themselves procuring a small elite group of editors.
This is especially clear on political articles but also on cults and other organiza
Re: Or (Score:2)
Of course, that goes against why Wikipedia was made in the first place, but so does the select group of authorities.
Re:Wikipedia used in election interference (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a Conservopedia if you want to check that out. Warning, it's utter rubbish, but you do get to see what you can accomplish when you put ideology ahead of knowledge.
What parts of the WHO material will be printed? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Almost as if they adjusted their findings as new information was discovered and proven...
Re:What parts of the WHO material will be printed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Except they didn't say that at all: https://www.forbes.com/sites/b... [forbes.com]
Your facts are meaningless to idiots. The WHO is the evil person here. They heard it in their echo chamber, the only source of news they trust. I mean sure they *could* look up other sources to get a less biased world view, heck they *could* go to the WHO's website on account of 100% of the WHO's advice being on public record free to look up at any time, but that's no where near as trustworthy as the echo chamber.
Re: (Score:1)
On the gripping hand they reported WuFlu, or is it Xi's Disease, was not contagious for a month while it was raging in China as a very contagious disease. China told WHO that they were to report it was not contagious even though Taiwan had already figured it was and had notified WHO. So are you going to believe WHO if it declares the Sun generally shines at noon without checking for yourself?
{^_^}
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, the WHO, as a UN organisation, is dependent on sovereign states' cooperation.
Surely you are not going to suggest that the UN should be free to operate as it wishes inside a sovereign state without said state's consent?
Re: (Score:2)
China told WHO that they were to report it was not contagious
False. China reported it to the WHO as non contagious. The WHO is wholly dependent on the data they are given from medical institutions of its member nations as they do not operate hospitals or labs directly.
On the gripping hand they reported WuFlu
But all of what I just said is irrelevant since by using the term WuFlu you've shown yourself to have zero credibility and be little more than a racist cunt so whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure buddy. Right after the part about unicorn farts curing cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean selective partial border closures didn't work? They didn't. Lockdowns were recommended and worked.
Re: (Score:3)
Are they going to include the part where the WHO says that lockdowns don't work?
How about the success Taiwan has had in fighting the virus? Surely that'll feature prominently, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Are they going to include the part where the WHO says that lockdowns don't work?
Of course. It'll be right next to the story about how President Hillary Clinton caused all of the American deaths personally. You can find that on Google by typing "fan fiction".
Not just Wikipedia (Score:5, Informative)
It is actually free for everyone.
Wikipedia is just where it goes first, but the license is CC BY-SA, which mean you can pull it out of Wikipedia and use it with no additional restrictions.
Wikipedia relaxes licensing requirements? (Score:1)
At some point, years ago, I was an avid participant in Wikipedia, uploading numerous photographs of wildlife, which we took on our trips.
Though I granted Wikipedia the rights to use them world-wide (and an all foreign-language Wikis) in perpetuity, that was not good enough — and later the pictures were removed because the licensing was "too restrictive", as I wanted to be paid by anyone using the images commercially.
Re:Wikipedia relaxes licensing requirements? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA. That means you can pull stuff out of it, as long as you identify the source (the "SA" Source Attribution part of the license).
You licensed your photos under CC-NC, where "NC" is "non-commercial". Unfortunately, NC is rather restrictive as it covers basically anything for money - if your image was shown during a Wikipedia funding drive, that actually constitutes "Commercial" activity by the CC license and thus Wikipedia couldn't use the image as fundraising is a commercial activity. Thus your photos were licensed too restrictively for even Wikipedia to use.
You could've put up "web quality" versions of the photos with a link to your site for higher resolution images, but you run into two things - people with high resolution displays will be disappointed if you post low-res images, and since Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA, if you posted decent photos, people could just use the image off Wikipedia commercially.
Re:Wikipedia relaxes licensing requirements? (Score:5, Informative)
the "SA" Source Attribution part of the license).
Actually, SA means Share Alike: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.
Attribution is the "BY" part. Other than that you are right.
Re: (Score:1)
So, what is the license used by WHO? And, if it is anything other than CC-BY-SA, why are they allowed to use it?
Will they include "Tommy"? (Score:3)
How about "Quadrophenia"? "WHO's Next"?
Re: (Score:1)
With the pandemic situation, "WHO's next" is especially pertinent.
combat or spread misinformation? (Score:2)
Hard to gauge who has more credibility ... wikipedia or the WHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? What is not credible about the WHO? And in your response please cite only WHO published documents (they are all freely available), and not anything Fox or the orange idiot in chief told you.
Republic of China (Score:1)