Wikipedia Italian risks to close

[Foxy]

http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2011/10/04/foto/norma_anti-blog_la_protesta_di_wikipedia-22703952/1/

http://www.hwfiles.it/news/la-protesta-di-wikipedia-continua-modifiche-al-decreto-legge_38857.html

Since various days it is impossible to open any page of Wikipedia in Italian, for the protest that Wikipedia is doing against the new decree about the telephone tappings. It will remain closed until at least October 6th, when Parliament will discuss the law.
The decision taken by Wikipedia to black out its pages in Italian is due to the fact that if the law passes, Wikipedia will risk to be really closed. The law, indeed, will limit very much the freedom of expression and of speech of every Italian citizen and of Wikipedia and will permanently change its nature.

[Bard]

I immediatly switched to the english wiki, I cannot live without wikipedia.
Apparently the italian wiki is now back.

[askra]

I I cannot live without wikipedia.

me too, wikipedia is become a virtual extension of my brain :p

fortunately, the parliament has modified the decree that limit the press freedom for blogs and web sites like wikipedia, now it is applied only on the online newspapers, and the site was re-activated yesterday night.

[supergiovane]

no problem, I can use the english version even if they don't have an article for Alvaro Vitali, Bombolo or Cannavale. my english reading comprension is quite good.
quando ho dato l'esame di inglese all'uni su 70 iscritti solo in 20 lo abbiamo passato.
capre, capre, capre!

[Arthur Scharrenhans]

Onestamente, consulto la wikipedia italiana principalmente per articoli d'interesse locale assenti o molto ridotti su quella inglese, perché a livello qualitativo non c'è confronto. Però wikipedia che rischia di chiudere per decreto governativo sarebbe davvero stata roba da quarto mondo. Che vergogna...

[research_centre]

I immediatly switched to the english wiki, I cannot live without wikipedia.
Apparently the italian wiki is now back.

Only a moron would rely on facts from a public site that is not subjected to scholarly review. End of story.

[askra]

Only a moron would rely on facts from a public site that is not subjected to scholarly review. End of story.

it's proved that the level of mistakes in wikipedia is comparable to the most renowned encyclopedias, like the Encyclopædia Britannica.
i can find a lot of inaccuracies in great part of not-free encyclopedias, but unlike wikipedia they are not correctable, and mistakes are repeated continuously in the new editions.

[research_centre]

it's proved that the level of mistakes in wikipedia is comparable to the most renowned encyclopedias, like the Encyclopædia Britannica.
i can find a lot of inaccuracies in great part of not-free encyclopedias, but unlike wikipedia they are not correctable, and mistakes are repeated continuously in the new editions.

In my view the risk of that Wiki shite being changed at any given second being right or wrong is too great at any given point in time. What source is your proven source that the errors of a scholarly reviewed encyclopedia before publication is comparable? Please provide the source of that proof. I am out of college yet my university banned any use of Wiki sources.

And there is no way IMHO that some public sourced Wiki is on the same level as the sources of Google Scholar. You mean to tell me you would rely on a public Wiki source for medical information? Please.

[askra]

In my view the risk of that Wiki shite being changed at any given second being right or wrong is too great at any given point in time. What source is your proven source that the errors of a scholarly reviewed encyclopedia before publication is comparable? Please provide the source of that proof. I am out of college yet my university banned any use of Wiki sources.

i read it a lot of times ago, it was realised a study published from the journal "Nature". the results were that averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.



Read more: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html#ixzz1a2361W28

And there is no way IMHO that some public sourced Wiki is on the same level as the sources of Google Scholar. You mean to tell me you would rely on a public Wiki source for medical information? Please.

i would contact a doctor instead to rely on any encyclopledias source for medical information.

[research_centre]

i read it a lot of times ago, it was realised a study published from the journal "Nature". the results were that averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.



i would contact a doctor instead to rely on any encyclopledias source for medical information.

If you recall the issue of the journal Nature that came from date and number please post it. I am interested to know more regarding the study and what was included or excluded, method used. Thanks.

[askra]

If you recall the issue of the journal Nature that came from date and number please post it. I am interested to know more regarding the study and what was included or excluded, method used. Thanks.

it's an old article written about 5 years old

should be this number:
Nature 438, pages 900-901| doi:10.1038/438900a

you can find easily related articles online

[research_centre]

it's an old article written about 5 years old

should be this number:
Nature 438, pages 900-901| doi:10.1038/438900a

Thank you.

[askra]

Thank you.

my pleasure

[research_centre]

my pleasure

I found it. Again, thank you. I also found this interesting piece on the same issue of Wiki and reliability. http://concordia.academia.edu/ChituOkoli/Papers/375377/A_Brief_Review_of_Studies_of_Wikipedia_In_Peer-Reviewed_Journals

[Foxy]

Wikipedia today has published that they are not sure yet if the decree, so modified, will permit Wikipedia Italian to remain open. For the moment they have stopped the black out but nothing is sure yet. Wikipedia thanks everyone who has supported the initiative, aimed at safeguarding a free and neutral knowledge.

This is what you can read today on Wikipedia Italian:

Il 4, 5 e 6 ottobre 2011 gli utenti di Wikipedia in lingua italiana hanno ritenuto necessario oscurare le voci dell'enciclopedia per sottolineare che un disegno di legge in fase di approvazione alla Camera potrebbe minare alla base la neutralità di Wikipedia.
(qui il testo approvato dalla Camera dei deputati l'11 giugno 2009, poi modificato dal Senato il 10 giugno 2010; qui gli emendamenti)

Sono stati proposti degli emendamenti, ma le modifiche al disegno di legge non sono ancora state approvate in via definitiva. Non sappiamo, quindi, se sia ormai scongiurata l'approvazione della norma nella sua formulazione originaria, approvazione che vanificherebbe gran parte del lavoro fatto su Wikipedia.

Grazie a chi ha supportato la nostra iniziativa, tesa esclusivamente alla salvaguardia di un sapere libero e neutrale.
Comunicato del 4 ottobre 2011 - Rassegna stampa


I immediatly switched to the english wiki, I cannot live without wikipedia.
Apparently the italian wiki is now back.

I checked on Wikipedia English too, but it is a paradox that an Italian must check in English. Let's choose English as national language then!!
Indeed I also check for infos on wikipedia when I need a definition or something in a quick time. I have done a whole medical glossary in English for the university using only the Oxford dictionary, an other English dictionary and Wikipedia. It would be the shittiest figure of the century if Wiki Italian closes.


no problem, I can use the english version even if they don't have an article for Alvaro Vitali, Bombolo or Cannavale. my english reading comprension is quite good.
quando ho dato l'esame di inglese all'uni su 70 iscritti solo in 20 lo abbiamo passato.
capre, capre, capre!

Io ho superato inglese III con 30/30 e la lode. ;) Ma quando scrivo su sto forum non mi si crea di stare a ricontrollare ecc. ecc.

[Incal]

Onestamente, consulto la wikipedia italiana principalmente per articoli d'interesse locale assenti o molto ridotti su quella inglese, perché a livello qualitativo non c'è confronto. Però wikipedia che rischia di chiudere per decreto governativo sarebbe davvero stata roba da quarto mondo. Che vergogna...

Ecco! Io facio lo stesso con la wikipedia in spagnolo: Solo per soggetti que sono troppo collegati con la cultura hispana. Per il resto de cose, sempre la wikipedia in inglese.