Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Just five years ago, when Jimbo Wales founded Wikipedia, the project’s goal of 100,000 articles [1] seemed ambitious. Yet today, the project, now one of the top 25 websites in the world according to Alexa, is nearing closer 1,000,000 articles in English, and 3.5 million articles across all languages. This week, we interviewed Jimbo Wales.

Colored version

Wikinews: Raul654 asks: “Recently, there were revelations about organized attempts by US Congressmen to whitewash their articles. What is your take on this, as well as earlier reports of Corporate astroturfing?”

Jimbo Wales: The question is invalid. There were no revelations of organized attempts by US Congressmen to whitewash their articles. Not any evidence of “corporate astroturfing” of which I am aware. There was evidence that some congressional staffers edited Wikipedia in inappropriate ways. But the internal evidence of the type and style of these edits do not suggest “organized attempts”.

WN: Nichalp asks: “Budget permitting, are there any plans to increase the number of Wikipedia servers, specifically into the less developed countries?”

JW: We are always buying new servers. There are no specific plans to add servers in less developed countries, but we have looked into it as a possibility. We are particularly interested in doing so if it helps increase access and reduce costs for those users.

WN: An anonymous reader asks: “How much of a role do you feel the Wikipedia community (and the communities of its sister projects) should have in the running of the Wikimedia Foundation? Do you see an increasing separation of the organization from the projects? If so, do you regard that as beneficial or a potential problem?”

JW: The community has always been and will always be absolutely crucial to the running of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are increasing the community input and activity in the foundation through a new series of committees to delegate things to community members which have traditionally been handled by me or the Board. I do not see any increasing separation of the organization from the projects, quite the opposite. I consider the increasing integration of the community and the foundation as overwhelmingly beneficial.

WN: ALoan asks: “English Wikipedia is approaching 1 million articles, but less than 1 in a thousand are Featured articles. The list of featured articles English Wikipedia should have has few featured articles, and recent surveys of articles chosen at random show that many articles are poorly written. How can we get from here to an encyclopedia of well-written articles? Or should we not worry too much about coverage and content?”

JW: We should be tightly focused on the quality of our coverage and content. The goal of Wikipedia is to create and distribute a freely licensed high quality encyclopedia. The path to that goal will require us to be flexible and thoughtful. The first steps will come soon with the article review system, which will initially be used simply to gather data. After we have data, we can begin to work on how we will focus our attention to improve quality.

WN: GeorgeStepanek asks: “You’ve said that ‘Wikimedia’s mission is to give the world’s knowledge to every single person on the planet in their own language.’ But very few of the wikipedias in the languages of third-world countries are seeing as much activity as the first-world language wikipedias. Do you have any ideas on how this could be turned around?”

JW: I am a believer in outreach. I would like for the Foundation to raise money specifically to pay one or more minority language co-ordinators. The goal would be to reach out in a more organized way to professors and graduate students and expat communities who have good Internet access, to seed projects for languages where the majority of speakers have poor internet access.

WN: Jacoplane asks: “How do you feel we will be able to reach Wikipedia 1.0? The tools currently available for vetting our articles are crude at best. The Featured article process seems too slow, and the article validation feature seems to have died a quiet death. Are you planning a big push on this front?”

JW: Isn’t that the same question as the quality question? The article validation feature has not died a quiet death at all.

WN: Quadell asks: “Most important decisions on Wikimedia projects are handled with consensus. However, we sometimes have to deal with legal issues, especially related to copyright law. For instance, we as a community may need to decide whether to consider a certain use “fair”, or how to deal with conflicting copyright claims. Dealing with this through consensus is problematic, since we can’t do something illegal even if there is widespread misguided support for it. In general, how can we as a community deal with these issues?”

JW: I don’t think there is any real problem with this. The community is strongly in support of following the law. I don’t know of any particular cases of widespread misguided support for something illegal. In particular cases, there can of course be [dis]agreement, but I have never seen anyone in the community argue that we should not listen to the advice of our legal team.

WN: Raul654 asks: “Where do you see Wikipedia in 10 years?”

JW: I don’t know. My favorite answer to this is to say, the real question is: where will the world be after 10 more years of Wikipedia. 🙂 Seriously, I think we’ll eventually see a tapering off of new article creation in the large language wikipedias as more and more “verifiable” topics are covered. At this point, most changes will be expansions and updates and quality improvements to existing articles. But in 10 years, it seems likely to me that many languages which are now quite small will have very large Wikipedia projects. Our community will continue to become more diverse as more and more people worldwide come online.

WN: Kevin Myers asks: “The values reflected in certain Wikipedia policies (anti-censorship, neutral point-of-view) are problematic in cultures where freedom of expression is limited, as the blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China and arguably the Muhammad cartoons controversy attest. As Wikipedia expands internationally, do you foresee Wikipedia becoming increasingly controversial in countries where “Western values” are seen as a potential threat?”

JW: I don’t think that neutrality and objectivity are really controversial among most people of the world. It is true that the leadership in some places does not value these things, and may actually work against these things, but we can not deviate from our goals to accommodate them.

WN: On a similar topic, Vsion asks: “Are there currently any efforts being undertaken by the Foundation to address the People’s Republic of China’s blocking of Wikipedia or to alleviate its effect?”

JW: Beijing-area Wikipedians are working to have the block lifted. Our position is that the block is in error, even given China’s normal policies. Wikipedia is not propaganda, it is basic information. We expect that the block will be lifted.

WN: David.Monniaux asks: “The Foundation receives daily accusations of libel from semi-well-known people who have an entry on Wikipedia or are mentioned in some Wikipedia entry. What do you propose? Would a strict application of the rule of citing controversial claims suffice, in your opinion?”

JW: Yes. I think that our current systems do a good job of addressing these sorts of complaints, although it is very time-consuming for us here in the office. What really works wonders is a very strict application of the rule of citing controversial claims particularly relating to biographies of living persons. The new policy on biographies of living persons is a very strong step in the right direction.

WN: Tony Sidaway asks: “In the past six weeks the number of userboxes on English Wikipedia has risen from 3500 to 6000 and, despite your appeals for restraint, the number pertaining to political beliefs has risen from 45 to 150. Can the problem of unsuitable userboxes still be resolved by debate?”

JW: My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable.

WN: Larsinio asks: “How can Wikipedia effectively explain to the public its open-contribution model without simultaneously worrying the public about inaccurate information?”

JW: I think we do a reasonably good job of that. The best thing is to point to our overall quality while at the same time pointing out that we are currently a work in progress. Over time, this answer will change as we move toward ‘1.0’. At that time, we can point to ‘1.0’ for those who are made nervous by the live editing.

WN: Rob Church asks: “Do you consider the encyclopedia to be ‘finished’? Do you think it ever can be?”

JW: Nothing is ever finished. Human knowledge is always growing.

WN: Raul654 and Pavel Vozenilek both asked, “What kind of cool new features/announcements can we expect to see in the next year or two?”

JW: I think this question is too hard for me to answer. I almost never “announce” anything, and features are developed publicly by the community. I think other people have a better idea than I do what will happen in the next year or two. 🙂 Ask Brion [Vibber].

WN: Celestianpower asks: “If you had not founded Wikipedia, and had just been referred to it by a friend, how active a contributor do you think you would be?”

JW: [I] dream fondly of such a scenario. I might actually get to edit articles then. Instead of spend the morning (this morning) documenting transactions and taking phone calls.

WN: OpenToppedBus asks: “The last fundraising drive was less successful than had been anticipated. Do you see a shortage of money holding back Wikipedia/Wikimedia in the short-to-medium-term, and are there any plans to bring in income from sources other than individual donations?”

JW: The last fundraising drive was more successful than had been anticipated, by a long shot. It was the most successful fund drive in our history. [Regarding a quoted goal of $500,000], Mav wrote something like that somewhere, in a scratchpad kind of way. That number was just a placeholder and had nothing to do with me or the official view of the foundation. He’s apologized repeatedly for it.

WN: Thryduulf asks: “What is your single greatest wish for Wikipedia?”

JW: I would have to just point back to our original goal: a freely licensed high quality encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. That’s what I remain focused on daily.

Sunday, March 4, 2018

On Thursday in a meeting at New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office, Maria Contreras-Sweet Group, billionaire Ron Burkle, and a number of other investors acquired assets of The Weinstein Company for reportedly about US$500 million. The Weinstein Company had financial difficulties and was nearly bankrupt after Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women last year, which impacted the business budget.

At least two of The Weinstein Company board of directors — consisting of Tarak Ben Ammar, Lance Maerov and Bob Weinstein — participated in the meeting, according to The New York Times. Maria Contreras-Sweet Group was represented by Maria Contreras-Sweet and Ron Burkle. The New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman was also in the meeting.

Maria Contreras-Sweet Group agreed to pay The Weinstein Company’s debt, sized at US$225 million, reports indicated. The acquisition would save around 150 jobs held at the Weinstein Company. Maria Contreras-Sweet Group announced the deal, also confirmed by The Weinstein Company. The deal was expected to take about 40 days to be completed.

The agreement required Maria Contreras-Sweet Group to protect the jobs of company employees, and establish a victim compensation fund which would compensate victims of Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual misconduct while not rewarding the “bad actors”, as Schneiderman put it — people who had contributed to the sexual misconduct. The victim compensation fund would allegedly be around US$90 million, according to reports.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against The Weinstein Company in early February of this year. He reportly indicated he might settle the lawsuit after the deal is finalized.

Maria Contreras-Sweet Group said they would use the assets in creating a new movie studio with a majority-female leadership.

The Weinstein Company said on Monday, three days before the deal announcement, it intended to file for bankruptcy as it could not find a buyer that would keep it afloat until the deal would be finalized.

The Weinstein Company was founded in 2005.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, killed nearly 19,000 Americans in 2005 alone, according to a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. That is more people than were killed by AIDS in the United States. More than 94,000 Americans were afflicted with MRSA infections in 2005.

Although the supergerm, or superbug, is primarily found in hospitals, a growing number of cases have been contracted at public gyms and schools. In Moneta, Virginia, a high school senior died from an infection that spread to his kidney, liver, lungs and heart. In Bedford County, where Moneta is located, school officials have reported five cases of the Methicillin-resistant strain of the Staph bacteria. County officials closed the schools to clean them.

“Certainly, MRSA now has to be viewed as a very important target for prevention and control,” said Dr. David A. Talan, an infectious diseases specialist at Olive View-UCLA Medical Center.

Sunday, July 9, 2006

Italy converted five immaculate penalties to win the 2006 FIFA World Cup after a drawn game and thirty minutes of extra-time in the spectacular arena of the Olympiastadion Berlin, Sunday.

French captain Zinedine Zidane did not help his team when, 20 minutes into extra time, he lost control of his emotions and got a red card after ramming his head into the chest of Italian player Marco Materazzi.

The game was closely contested with the play makers on both sides – Andrea Pirlo and Zidane, on his last game before retirement – not getting much space with which to dominate the play. For Italy and France Gennaro Gattuso and Claude Makelele tackled hard.

However; both creative midfield stars made important contributions to the only goals of the game. Zidane converted a chipped penalty after five minutes while Pirlo’s magnificent corner, a quarter of an hour later, thundered into the net off Marco Materazzi’s head.

Materazzi had previously conceded the penalty when he tapped Florent Malouda on his ankle as he ran past him in the penalty area.

In the first half Italy’s left and right defensive backs Gianluca Zambrotta and Fabio Grosso penetrated down the French flanks. But after the break France came out the strongest. The flow of the game was disrupted when Patrick Viera pulled-up injured and Marcello Lippi made two substitutions on the hour. A deadlock resulted as teams tired and individuals battled for every ball without thinking too hard about constructing team attacks.

Materazzi was never far from the action in the final and though Italy had 55 percent of ball possession was one of the busier players on the pitch. France were slightly more potent offensively with 13 shots – out-shooting the Azzurri by eight attempts.

In Extra Time France came closest to a goal – Zidane, unmarked, headed to goal from 12 yards but was tipped over one-handed by Gianluigi Buffon.

Zidane’s next contribution to the game was not so graceful and appeared to be sparked by the close marking of the ubiquitous Materazzi. After a verbal altercation the 34-year-old turned around and drove his head violently into the Italian’s upper chest.

Materazzi was knocked backwards on the floor but the incident occurred off the ball and was not immediately noticed by the referee or his assistants. Buffon soon ran out of his penalty area to an assistant referee and the game was stopped.

Horacio Elizondo ran to the touchline to consult with officials and returned waving a red card for the violent conduct of Zidane. It is likely FIFA used information from fourth and fifth official to confirm the decision. However FIFA denied video evidence claims alleged by France team’s coach Raymond Domenech^[1].

The headbutt and red card was Zidane’s last action in football as he had said he would retire after the tournament.

A penalty shootout was necessary to decide the winner. Eight shots went in; David Trezeguet missed the one that mattered. His shot hit the crossbar and unlike Zidane’s penalty in the first half, bounced down inches the wrong side of the goal line.

While Zidane was hanging his boots up Marco Materazzi scored Italy’s third. Grosso, who in the second round had won a last minute penalty against Australia, powered in the fifth to give Italy the cup.

The only goal Marcello Lippi’s Italy conceded during free play in the tournament proved to be an own goal from Cristian Zaccardo against the United States of America.

Italy captain Fabio Cannavaro, on the occasion of his 100th cap, was instrumental in their defensive achievement. Amid wild scenes of joy on the pitch he jumped onto the podium and lifted the trophy, the fourth of Italy’s history.

Post match celebrations

Following the match the streets and plazas of Italy were filled with celebrating fans, with flags waving from thousands of cars and motorbikes.

• Celebrations in Florence for the winning penalty
• Celebrations on the streets of Florence after the win by Italy

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Washington, D.C. – The Environmental Protection Agency may have a new tool in its arsenal to fight global warming. The agency has submitted a proposal to the Obama administration which aims to list carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

The policy had previously been proposed to and rejected by the Bush administration, which said it was the wrong tool to be using. The proposal lists the negative effects of global warming, including longer and hotter heat waves, increased flooding, and the increased spread of diseases due to warmer weather.

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has previously suggested declaring global warming a health threat, and that the agency could use the 1970 Clean Air Act to use to combat it.

Environmental groups applauded the finding, with the director of Clean Air Watch, Frank O’Donnell, calling it “a green-letter day for the environment.”

One of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice presidents, William L. Kovacs, said if the the proposal is put into effect that it “will be devastating to the economy.”

It is unclear whether the Obama administration will go along with the proposal. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt commented that “The president has made clear that to combat climate change, his strong preference is for Congress to pass energy security legislation that includes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.” No specific timeline has been given for when a decision would be made.

An upcoming conference in Copenhagen, Denmark will focus on drawing up a new international global warming treaty, which the United States plans to attend, a clear reversal from the Bush administration’s non-participation in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

[edit]

Friday, January 15, 2010

An elderly woman who was a crossing guard or a “lollipop lady” has been killed in an accident involving a truck in Glasgow, Scotland. The woman has been identified as 59-year-old Catherine Gibson, who came from the Dennistoun district of Glasgow. At around 0850 GMT on Thursday, Gibson was assisting children in crossing a road as part of her job near St. Anne’s Primary School, located in the east side of the city. Gibson was suddenly struck by a truck and dragged underneath the wheels of the vehicle. The children being assisted witnessed the entire collision.

After the accident occurred, Gibson was transported to a hospital but died shortly afterwards. The truck driver, who is aged 64, was not injured in the crash. The vehicle itself was taken away from the scene of the accident at approximately 1200 GMT on the same day. A person working in a garage near where the accident occurred said: “There were children waiting to cross the road and they were all screaming and crying. They all ran back from where the accident had happened. She was found face down and it looked as though the lorry had driven over her shoulder. She was alive when she was found but died a short time later. It was horrific and the kids will probably need counselling.

“It could have been a case of the driver not being able to see her because the vehicle is quite high as he caught her on the passenger side. It’s not clear whether she gave him enough time to stop or whether the driver has failed to stop. It was snowing as well so that could have been a factor.”

Louise Jarvie is the head teacher of St. Anne’s Primary School. “Our thoughts and condolences are with the family at this very sad time,” she said in reference to the incident. “Support and counselling for pupils and staff will be available to anyone who needs it.”

[edit]