Archive for the ‘Wikipedia’ Category

Wikipedia Fights Russian Order to Remove Ukraine War Information – The Organization for World Peace

On June 6, 2022, the Wikimedia Foundation, the owner of Wikipedia, filed an appeal against a Moscow courts order to remove prohibited information in articles regarding the war in Ukraine.

In their statement released on June 13th, the Wikimedia Foundation argued that the information at issue is fact-based and verified by volunteers its removal would therefore constitute a violation of peoples rights to free expression and access to knowledge. Additionally, according to the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia does not fall under Russian jurisdiction because it is a global resource available to anyone worldwide.

Wikipedia has consistently been an easily accessible online source of information, gathering material from hundreds of thousands of volunteers globally. It is routinely fact-checked, and its contributors take time to properly vet the details they publish. Therefore, Wikipedia is a credible source for documenting widely reported facts about the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Russias attempt to silence Wikipedia threatens to further harm regular Russian citizens who deserve to know about their governments actions. The Wikimedia Foundation filing this appeal sends a clear message to the Russian government that they will not be deterred from spreading accurate news, a commendable pushback to Russian aggression.

Threats of legal action from Russia arose shortly after the initial attacks on Ukraine in late February 2022 when volunteers began posting information on Russian Wikipedia detailing the events that were taking place. Some of these articles include Russian Invasions of Ukraine (2022), Battle for Kyiv, War Crimes During the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, Shelling of Hospital in Mariupol, Bombing of the Mariupol Theater, and Massacre in Bucha.

As early as March 1, 2022, Roskomnadzor, Russias federal agency in charge of monitoring and censoring Russian mass media sent a demand to the Wikimedia Foundation to remove content related to the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine posted by volunteer contributors to Russian Wikipedia. However, the Wikimedia Foundation defended all of the mentioned articles, expressing that they were centered around fact-based information. Later on March 31st, Roskomnadzor published a statement confirming their actions to remove inaccurate information on the subject of a special military operation of the RF Armed Forces in Ukraine, aimed at misinforming Russian users. When the Wikimedia Foundation defended and refused to take down the articles, a Moscow court issued a 5 million rubles (approximately $86,000) fine in April.

The legal standing that the Moscow court cited when issuing this fine was from a law enacted by President Putin in early March, which bans the spread of false information about the activities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, according to Kommersant, a Russian news source. Roskomnadzor argued that all the Wikipedia articles previously mentioned include prohibited information, and the Moscow court concurred with this finding.

This case with Wikipedia is only one instance within a larger issue where valuable information is being blocked from Russian citizens in order to protect the governments image and shape the narrative surrounding the invasion of Ukraine. Since early March, social media and news coverage have drastically changed in Russia, with Twitter and Facebook being blocked and dozens of journalists being banned from the country.

As international news coverage becomes harder to access in Russia, it is critical that the Moscow court accepts the Wikimedia Foundations appeal and allows the continuation of its publications in Russia. Russians must be accurately informed about their governments continued attacks on a sovereign state, and Putins administration must be held accountable for its role in this war. If millions of people do not have access to factual accounts of these recent events, it will be significantly more difficult to reach an end to the violence and begin taking steps toward negotiations.

The rest is here:
Wikipedia Fights Russian Order to Remove Ukraine War Information - The Organization for World Peace

All Blacks Wikipedia page edited to mock New Zealand accent – New Zealand Herald

Sport

28 Jun, 2022 09:34 PM2 minutes to read

The All Blacks have been forced to adjust as three coaches and two players have been hit by Covid just days before their first test with Ireland.Video / NZ Rugby

The All Blacks have been targeted by an online vandal ahead of the test series against Ireland, with their Wikipedia page edited to follow a "New Zealand English style guide".

The vandal hilariously skewered the Kiwi accent with a rogue edit - and added their own comment.

"The New Zealand netional rugby union team, commonly known as the All Blecks by Kiwis but uncorrictly spilled All Blacks on uts logo, riprisints New Zealand in min's unternetional rugby union, whuch us consudered the country's netional sport. The team won the Rugby World Cup in 1987, 2011 and 2015," the edited page read.

"They're choice, bro," the prankster added.

The page went on to describe the breadth of the All Blacks' success, in a cringingly-familiar tone.

"New Zealand hes a sivinty-sivin per-cint wunning ricord un tist-match rugby, and has sucured more wuns thin losses aginst iviry tist opponent," it read.

"Sunce their unternetional debut un 1903,[6] New Zealand teams have played tist metches aginst 19 nations, of whuch ilivin hev niver won a game aginst the All Blecks. The team has also played aginst three multinetional all-star teams, losing only eight of 45 matches.

"Since the untroduction of the World Rugby Renkings in 2003, New Zealand has held the number-one renking longer thin all other teams combined. They jointly hold the ricord for the most consicutive tist match wuns for a tier-one renked nation, along with Ungland."

The changes, made by Wikipedia user Celebi12, were quickly removed - but not before they were noticed by eagle-eyed Kiwis.

The identity of Celebi12 remains a mystery but their Wikipedia edits show they appear to take an interest in English football - and record that they have previously been warned for "disruptive editing".

Sorry, dusruptive iditing.

Continued here:
All Blacks Wikipedia page edited to mock New Zealand accent - New Zealand Herald

Chan Sen – Wikipedia

Tambon in Nakhon Sawan, Thailand

Chan Sen, also written as Chansen (Thai: , pronounced [tn.sn]) is a tambon (subdistrict) in Takhli District, Nakhon Sawan Province, upper central Thailand.

Chan Sen's history dates back more than 2,0003,000 years and is considered an ancient town in the late Iron Age and continued until the early Dvaravati period, contemporary with Funan in present-day Vietnam and Suphan Buri's U Thong. This is confirmed by the discovery of human skeletons, fragments of pottery, stone axes and iron tools on Khao Chong Khae Hill in the area and at Ban Mai Chaimongkol Village in its district as well as the neighbouring areas.

The condition of the ancient town of Chan Sen was first discovered from aerial photographs in 1966 by Thai architect and national artist Nij Hincheerana.[1]

In addition, Chan Sen used to be an important trading route in the Lop BuriPasak basin.[1]

It is a southern part of the district, about 28km (17.4mi) from downtown Takhli. The topography can be divided into two main parts: non-irrigated area, an upland; and irrigated area which is a lowland.

The area is bounded by other subdistricts (from the north clockwise): Huai Hom in its district, Lat Thippharot in its district and Sai Huai Kaeo with Phai Yai in Ban Mi District of Lop Buri Province, Thong En in In Buri District of Sing Buri Province, Soi Thong, Phrom Nimit, and Chong Khae in its district, respectively.

Chan Sen has a total area of 35,634 rai or approximately 64.178 km2.[2]

The entire area is governed by the Subdistrict Administrative Organization Chan Sen (SAO Chan Sen).

It was also divided into 10 muban (village)

Chan Sen has a total population of 6,259 in 1,627 households.[3]

Go here to read the rest:
Chan Sen - Wikipedia

Elvis Is a Wikipedia Entry Directed by Baz Luhrmann – The New Yorker

A good-enough story can withstand more or less any direction, and thats the extent of the artistic success that Baz Luhrmann achieves with Elvis. The rise of a Memphis truck driver to a generational hero and a world icon, under the thumb of his Mephistophelian manager, and his fall to the status of a mere self-destructive celebrity who became an object of nostalgia while still young is amazing enough, in its arc and its details, to hold attention even in the course of a garish and simplistic two hours and thirty-nine minutes. Elvis is a gaudily decorated Wikipedia article that owes little to its sense of style; its a film of substance, but of bare substance, a mere photographic replica of a script that both conveys and squanders the power of Presleys authentic tragedy.

Luhrmann squeezes his name into the credits more times and more quickly than any other director Ive seen, aided by the idiosyncrasies of contractual punctuation: its a Baz Luhrmann film, from a story by Baz Luhrmann and Jeremy Doner and a screenplay by Baz Luhrmann & Sam Bromell and Baz Luhrmann & Craig Pearce and Jeremy Doner, and its directed by Baz Luhrmann. His style does more than leave smudgy fingerprints all over the material; its calculatedly obtrusive, as if to give viewers a thumb in the eye. But the key to Luhrmanns act of cinematic aggression is less its vain embellishment than its weird, misguided, yet deeply revealing premise: it thrusts Presleys predatory manager, Colonel Tom Parker, front and center.

The character of Colonel Tom is embodied by the movies one above-the-title-sized star, Tom Hanks, who plays the role with a slimy, serpentine monotony under transformative costumes and makeup (Parker was fat and bald) and a chewy, indistinct accent (Parker was born and raised in the Netherlands). Hanks is the films narrator as well as a main onscreen presence alongside Presley, whose life and art are related from Colonel Toms perspective. Indeed, the drama of Elvis is the musicians effort to become, in effect, the protagonist of his own life, to fulfill his own plans and dreams rather than the requirements of Elvis Presley the business, which was run by Parker. The movie is even framed as a flashback from Parkers collapse, just before his death in 1997; its drama is launched by a self-justifying and self-unaware monologue in which Colonel Tom denies any responsibility for Presleys death in 1977.

Colonel Tom takes credit for Elviss career (I made him), and adds that he and Elvis were partners, as the snowman and the showman. Parkers own career as an impresario started at travelling carnivals; he calls himself a snowman because hes capable of delivering a snow job on anyone for anything. Though he recognizes the originality of Elviss fusion of blues and country music, he sees Elvis not as an artist but as a showman, indeed as the greatest show on Eartha circus slogan, and the antithesis of earnest musicianship. But who was this miraculous hybrid? In come flashbacks to the backstory, of Elviss father, Vernon (Richard Roxburgh), incarcerated for passing a fraudulent check, and of the familys move to a Black neighborhood in Tupelo, Mississippi. There, in 1947, young Elvis (Chaydon Jay) makes Black friends and accompanies them to the areas two musical attractions: a roadhouse where Arthur (Big Boy) Crudup (Gary Clark, Jr.) plays electric blues, and a Pentecostal church where the revival service is filled with ecstatic gospel music and where Elvis, the only white person there, does more than listenhe plunges into the center of the service, dancing and flinging himself into the throng. Cut to Sun Records, where Elvis performs a cover of Crudups Thats All Right and the companys owner, Sam Phillips (Josh McConville), declares that the nineteen-year-old Elvis is playing Black music.

Throughout the film, Elviss bona fides in the Black community are emphasized, especially in his early and crucial friendship with B. B. King (Kelvin Harrison, Jr.) and with other important characters in Elviss musical rise, including Big Mama Thornton, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, and Little Richard (played by Shonka Dukureh, Yola, and Alton Mason, respectively). When Elvis passes through Black crowds in Memphiss Beale Street, they lovingly swarm him for autographs. But what makes Elvis an original, in the movies view, is more than his fusion of Black and white traditions; its the sexual frenzy that he whips up when he gets onstage, at an outdoor concert, with long hair and makeup that prompts a young white man (at a segregated show) to call him by a homophobic slur. At first hesitant at the mike, Elvis launches into a song, and his sinuous, thrusting moves conspicuously excite the young women in the crowd. His bassist, Bill Black (Adam Dunn), leans over and advises him to wiggle much more; when Elvis does, women scream in ecstasy and men are scandalized. Parker apostrophizes in voice-over, as he watches an excited woman, that shes having feelings she wasnt sure she should enjoythis unleashed Elvis is her forbidden fruit. He adds, It was the greatest carnival attraction Id ever seen.

Whatever pleasure Elvis manifestly feels in making music, his core motives are to make enough money for his parents to live in comfort; he promises his mother, Gladys (Helen Thomson), a pink Cadillac when he makes it big. But Gladys sees the dangeror, rather, telegraphs the rest of the movie when she warns him about the dangers of pursuing wealth, and adds that she saw something in the reaction of his audience that could come between them. That thing, of course, is fame, the bond with the public that makes him a commander of hearts and minds but also the victim of his devotees. He is mobbed in the street; the Presley family property is invaded by fans; police have to hold the crowds back from the stage at his concerts. Elvis is a cautionary tale about the predatory power of modern media and the uncontrollable force of fandomthe cult of personality that neglects and devours the person concealed in the plain sight of the public image. (Elvis is one of two new releases that dramatize the toxicity of fandom and sudden celebrity, the other being Marcel the Shell With Shoes On.)

The overt sexuality that Elvis displays is a source of scandal, denunciation, and legal threats, and, for Colonel Tom, a possible financial liability. From trying to sanitize Elviss public image and create a new Elvis (the public responds the way it responded, three decades later, to New Coke) to turning him all-American when hes drafted into the Army, Colonel Tom interferes with Elviss art and life alike, putting showmanship, celebrity, and publicity ahead of the musicians imperatives. Colonel Tom has a criminal past in the Netherlands and deserted from the U.S. Army; he is, unbeknownst to Elvis, undocumented and imperilled. He maneuvers and manipulates Elvis with secret deals that keep him virtually entombed in Las Vegas, exhausting himself emotionally and musically to feed his audiences nightly frenzies, jolted onstage each night through the medical depredations of a doctor for hire (Tom Nixon). Unsurprisingly, Colonel Tom exonerates himself from Elviss death at the age of forty-two. He says that Elvis was indeed addictedto the love that he got from you, the audience. He sums up: Ill tell you what killed him: it was lovehis love for you. The onus is on the members of the audience and their deadly effect on their superstar.

Luhrmann depicts Elvis as a pre-modern figure, an artist whose public image is somewhere between a phenomenon independent of his artistry and a means of advertising created by his business team. Elviss movie career proves to be mostly a disaster, despite some commercial success: its inescapable uncoolness impinges on his musical career and is an artistic failure in Elviss own eyes. (He dreamed of following in the footsteps of James Dean as a dramatic actor.) Elvis places great emphasis on his return to musical purity in his 1968 television special, and sets it against the political turmoil of the time, including the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy. The movie aims to show that Elvis strove to keep up with his moment, including politically, and only Colonel Toms blanding-out, old-fashioned handling of him got in the way. When Elviss star is falling, his manager riffs on how its not the Colonels fault that the world has changed. Yet one of the key things that changed was media consciousness itself and its relation to the new rock mainstreammost obvious in the Beatless self-aware media politics, their recognition of the inseparability of their art from their image, their image from their life, and their postmodern deployment of their fame in A Hard Days Night.

View post:
Elvis Is a Wikipedia Entry Directed by Baz Luhrmann - The New Yorker

Raju Narisetti on Wikipedia & the Mission To Take Free Knowledge to Every Person – The Quint

All our campaigns are time based, depending on the country. For example, in the west, the Thanksgiving to Christmas period tends to be the giving period. So we'll put some campaigns then. So it depends on the country and is always time bound.

The easy answer to your question is no, this is not a fundraising campaign related to any shortfall or crisis, but I would say that since our mission is to provide free knowledge and information to every person on this planet, we will always need money to do that.

I think it's easy to look at a number like $120 million, that is our annual budget and say, "Wow, that's a big number. Why do they need money?"

Let me give you a couple of examples. Depending on the month, we are probably the fifth or sixth or seventh largest site in the world in terms of the number of visits. If you look at the top five or top six in front of us, it'll be Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Baidu.

Baidu said in their annual report that they have spent $4 billion just on research and development. Facebook said that they will spend between $29 and $34 billion just on Capital expenditure in 2022.

So here are organisations that are roughly in the same ballpark as we are, having to spend significant amounts to keep up with the infrastructure. And here is Wikimedia, completely nonprofit, doesn't take any money, no advertising.

We do some of the same big infrastructure work, to support 1.5 billion devices with data centers around the world, making sure that whenever you want information, it's available. I think those things cost a fair amount of money.

See the original post:
Raju Narisetti on Wikipedia & the Mission To Take Free Knowledge to Every Person - The Quint