Mediaboss Marketing

The Wikipedia page of the list of Chief Ministers of Delhi was earlier vandalised today. The vandalised page addressed incumbent Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal as Lavanasur. Since then, the page has been rectified and Lavnasur can no longer be found on the page.

Amusingly enough, when one Googles Lavnasur, photographs of Kejriwal pop up in search images.

Lavanasura is actually a character from the Ramayana, a demon was killed by Shri Rams brother Shatrughan, the youngest of Ramas brothers. Lavanasura was a tormentor of the innocent and his notoriety was widespread. As a child, he used to kill his play mates and eat them. He used to disrupt the sacrifices of Sages and unleash terror across the land.

Not many people know it, but Arvind Kejriwal was awarded the Lavnasur moniker by a popular Twitter user. The user, who goes by the username @Being_Humor on Twitter, spoke to OpIndia regarding why he gave that particular name to the Delhi Chief Minister.

According to @Being_Humor, Kejriwal, like Lavanasura, torments people with his antics and generally gives people a hard time. The fact that the name sounds funny and sounds like a slang in general also convinced him to gift the AAP supremo the moniker.

When he threw the name at him initially, it was well received by the masses on social media. And since then, it has stuck. And before long, when someone googled Lavnasur on Google, Kejriwals photograph began to pop up due to the nature of algorithms.

Questioned regarding if Arvind Kejriwal really deserved the Lavnasur tag, he responded, Yes, because it is the truth.

The nickname has also led to endless memes on social media.

And it has culminated with the vandalism of the page on Wikipedia. Arvind Kejriwal is also famous for his U-Turns which has also made him the subject of much mockery online.

See the rest here:
Vandalised Wikipedia page refers to Arvind Kejriwal as Lavnasur: All you need to know about how the AAP chief got the moniker - OpIndia

Microsoft wants to provide wider tools alongside the lock icon to give users of Microsoft Edge more knowledge of website security. Specifically, the company is developing a solution that shows more details about a site in the information in a pop up.

Security is important, especially when browsing online. Many users are at risk from attack, so understanding if a website you visit is safe or not. A lock icon is a solid first step, showing that the site uses HTTPS and security tools like SSL encryption. However, it is no guarantee that the site is overall safe or not trying to scam you.

Moving forward, the pop up will show wider information about a site you are visiting, with details from Wikipedia. Ok, Wikipedia is hardly the final word in legitimate information, but the details should give users a solid knowledge of a sites security.

Advertisement

However, it is easy for someone not associated with the website to edit a Wikipedia entry. There is some concern that the website may not agree with their depiction on Wikipedia. In other words, the information Microsoft presents may be incorrect or simply made up.

Microsoft has baked in a toggle to Microsoft Edge Dev and Edge Canary in testing. However, it is currently only available to select testers. As well as information from Wikipedia, the pop-up also shows social media pages associated with the site.

Also in Microsoft Edge Canary, the company is working on an underside panel that highlights the more important information from the site.

Tip of the day: With many reachable wireless access points popping up and disappearing again, the available networks list can become quite annoying. If needed you can use the allowed and blocked filter list of Windows 10 to block certain WiFi networks or all unknown WiFi networks.

Advertisement

Original post:
Microsoft Edge Testing Wikipedia-Backed Site Information Pop-Ups - WinBuzzer

So Coffman did what she always did: She read. And because she happened to be between jobs, she was free to immerse herself in history for long stretches. She learned about the Civil War, the conflict behind so much of the turmoil in the United States. She read about lost cause ideology, which claims the Confederacy actually fought to preserve high-minded Southern ideals, not specifically the institution of slavery. She brushed up on her knowledge of the Second World War, a struggle more familiar to her.

Maybe the lack of a job, of people to collaborate with, is also what made Wikipedia seem like an attractive pastime. Thats what it was supposed to be: another hobby. At first, Coffman stuck to tentative, sporadic suggestions. But then she was making edits nearly every day; there was so much to fix. She liked the sites intricate bureaucracythe guidelines on etiquette and reliable sourcing, the policies on dispute resolution and article deletion, the learned essays and discussion pages that editors cite like case law. Wikipedia is very regimented, she says. I am good with instructions.

Gday, Peacemaker67 begins his note for K.e. coffman. Its late 2015, and he is concerned about recent changes to an article on Wikipedia (WP for short) about an SS tank division made up of Nordic Nazi volunteers. Sorry but there appears to be some sort of misunderstanding about what should be deleted on WP, and I just want to clarify it before this gets too far down the track.

Coffman recognizes this editors handle. Hes Australian, and his User page says he served as a peacekeeper in the former Yugoslavia. He is the same person who invited her to join WikiProject Military History, a group where editors can chat, take classes, win plaudits, and work on articles together.

Not for the first time, Coffman has been removing material from the article about the tank division. She thinks its full of unsourced fancruft, the Wikipedia word for fawning, excessively detailed descriptions that appeal to a tiny niche of readersin this case, those thrilled by accounts of battle. The article tells how the division acquitted itself well even against stiffening resistance, how it held the line and earned the grudging respect of skeptical commanders. One contributor has used the eyebrow-raising phrase baptism of fire. Its as if the editors dont see the part lower down the page where a soldier uses the phrase and then we cleaned a Jew hole.

The glorifying language, Coffman thinks, is a clear sign that this is historical fan fiction. It elides the horrors of war. If editors want such details to stay on the page, at a minimum they should use a better source than Axis History, a blog whose motto is Information not shared is lost.

The interaction starts out politely enough. IMHO it is good that you are deleting citations from unreliable bloggy sources, Peacemaker67 says. But just because material is sourced to them doesnt mean it is wrong.

K.e.coffman replies in less than an hour. Thank you for your note, she writes. Yes, I was surprised about how little I was able to salvage as I was editing the article. She lists 17 bullet-pointed examples of biased language, Nazi glorification, and unreliable claims. Would Wikipedia not bebetterwithout such content? she asks.

Well, people are on WP for different reasons, Peacemaker67 replies. I dont go around deleting stuff because I think it might be dodgy. He cites a page that counsels gradualism in editing, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles have long histories, and there is noWP:DEADLINE, he says.

Continue reading here:
One Womans Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia - WIRED

In my sophomore year of high school, my biology class was tasked with completing a month-long group research project in which we competed against each other. On one particular day, we had to distribute our research materials to other groups, and one group made the decision to cite a Wikipedia article. This caused a group member of mine to rush to inform the teacher of the mistake in hopes to gain a leg up in the competition. It is moments like this that remind me of how deeply ingrained an inherent distrust of Wikipedia as a source of information is; however, this distrust might be misplaced.

Wikipedia is marketed as an internet-sourced free encyclopedia with sister sites providing access to free media, free learning tools, free data and more, all funded under the Wikimedia Foundation. The goal of the site is to provide free knowledge to anyone who wants it.

This is accomplished via viewer donations and volunteers who contribute to writing the over six million articles currently available. The content of these articles is constricted by the organizations policy and guidelines, one of which is that all information in a Wikipedia article must be backed by another source that isnt a Wikipedia article. Editors and contributors work together to monitor content and ensure accuracy.

The Wikipedia family is meant to be supplemental tools to learning. Despite this, the source is commonly vilified by individuals, regardless of political ideology or educational background. Upon its conception, full campaigns were launched to ban Wikipedia, including failed legislation that attempted to ban it from public schools. However, since this first reaction, Wikipedia is gaining popularity in both academia and the public.

While Wikipedia itself is self-proclaimed to not be a reliable source alone, it clarifies that the site is meant to bolster understanding or kick start someones research. Despite this proclamation of reliability, conversation surrounding the topic has recently surfaced following its 20th anniversary this year.

In two separate content analyses conducted on Wikipedia content, it was compared in reliability to sources such as Britannica and other well-respected information providers. Educators at the University of Pittsburgh and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have promoted Wikipedia as a source of information not only for their students to use, but also contribute to, assigning their chemistry students to fill gaps in Wikipedia articles. Evidence also suggests that the scientific community is using Wikipedia as a method of reaching a more colloquial audience, outside of the context of paid-for academic journals.

Wikipedia is one of the most transparent sources available to the average person with self-publishing statistics on articles, editors, article traffic and more, complete with tables and figures to make it easily digestible. The course is also constantly campaigning to improve its level of information, relaunching its #1Lib1Ref campaign, calling on librarians to edit and add references to articles on the site.

While Wikipedia citations may not have a place in peer reviewed journals or submitted school papers, it is time that we stop shaming people for its use. Rather, it should be promoted as a great place to start your learning journey and spark natural curiosities. To expect everyone to have the time and means to engage in solely scholarly research is not only preposterous, but is also an innately classist mentality meant to gate-keep who is allowed to have a voice.

There is a fine line between expecting people to be well-read and making conversations inaccessible. Wikipedias contributions to the free knowledge movement and ever enduring push for self-improvement show it to find this line by making information acquisition and distribution accessible to all.

Link:
Reevaluating Wikipedia: A champion of the free knowledge movement - Chargerbulletin

Paul deLespinasse| Community Columnist

The Texas abortion ban cleverly obstructs legal challengers. The cleverness was needed becausethe statuteis clearly unconstitutional given the precedent ofRoe v. Wade.

The legislation denies Texas officials power to enforce it but authorizes private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone performing or contributing to an abortion. This blocks the way legislation is usually challenged before anyone is convicted for violating it.

Challengers usually sue the official who could enforce the law, but here there is no such official. Sinceanyprivate citizen could enforce this law, it is unclear who challengers could sue.

And successfully suing someone might notblock enforcement of the law.Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen, a lawyer,maintainsthata court could only grant an injunction against the particular private party who is the defendant in a lawsuit challenging the Texas statute. Anybody else could still sue abortion providers.

So why bother? You can't sue everybody.

Or can you?Perhaps Olsen didn't consider the possibility of a "class action"---"a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group."(Wikipedia)

Wikipediaaddsthat:

"Although normally plaintiffs are the class, defendant class actions are also possible. For example, in 2005, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon was sued as part of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Portland. All parishioners of the Archdiocese's churches were cited as a defendant class."

The class of people to be sued here wascreatedby the Texas statute itself: the private citizens authorized to sue abortionists. A lawsuit challenging the Texas statute therefore merely needs to makeallof them a defendant class.

If a court granted an injunction it would bindallmembers of the class.No one would remain available to sue abortionists.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's blistering dissent from the Supreme Court's 5-4refusal to enjoinenforcement of the law puts matters concisely:

"The Courts order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. Last night, the Court silently acquiesced in a States enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents. Today, the Court belatedly explains that it declined to grant relief because of procedural complexities of the States own invention."

Of course the Texas legislation at most can only delay legal challenges, not prevent them. The minute an abortionist gets sued by a private citizen acting under the new statute, the case will be in court.

If the court rules against that doctor, its decision can be appealed to higher courts and end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. This could take several years.

But a lot of women who are denied their current constitutional rights would be irreparably harmed by the delay. "Justice delayed is justice denied."

The more cautious abortion opponents have avoided putting the issue squarely before the Supreme Court, fearing that some justices personally opposed to abortion might upholdRoeon grounds ofstare decisis the importance of stable rules people can rely on.

Instead, they have enacted increasingly severe procedural limits on abortion, seeking to nibbleRoeto death. But Texas has chosen to be "in your face" about it.

The Supreme Court thereforemay not be able to evade the basic issue forever. It might either have to overruleRoeor strike down the Texas statute. I predict the latter.

Texas is playing with constitutional fire.Itsapproach is one that conservatives could never support as a general rule. It could also be used to protectotherlegislation violating the Constitution, including laws prohibiting ownership or possession ofallguns.

Paul F.deLespinasseis professor emeritus of political science and computer science at Adrian College. He can be reached at pdeles@proaxis.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Paul deLespinasse: Abortion gambit: If Texas gets away with it, there goes the Second Amendment - HollandSentinel.com