Talk for Article "Google, Facebook fund suicide prevention; Wikipedia criticised"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Due to the obvious conflict of interest, I shouldn’t edit the story directly, but it would be nice if it were updated with the response from me and from WMUK. Matt Hancock criticised us for not attending the summit(s), but we have absolutely no record of being invited in the first place.

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    The headline also reads as if the social media giants are funding the snub from Wikipedia. The (US) tradition of using a splice comma to save space isn’t really needed on-line. How about “Google, Facebook fund suicide prevention; Wikipedia criticised”

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Agree that this is a more neutral headline.

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    “Google and Facebook have agreed to fund the Samaritans”. To me, this says that Google and Facebook are paying the whole running costs of The Samaritans. Is this true? Or should we say “Google and Facebook have agreed to donate to The Samaritans”? If so, we should say how much.

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    It seems extremely odd to me to frame this story in terms of Wikipedia not participating.

    The story could easily be “Yay, Google and Facebook are taking social responsibility for the suicide stuff that happens on their platforms”, but is instead “Unlike G and F, Wikipedia isn’t taking responsibility for online suicide-related stuff”.

    Hence, this story is clearly about Wikipedia… Why? Why is there even the expectation that Wikipedia would participate in this sort of program?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Take a look at the Hansard debate https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-04-30/debates/434AFD6E-7484-47DA-8C1F-4A945896642B/SocialMediaAndHealth where the Minister, Matt Hancock, specifically criticised Wikipedia:

      Asked:

      > Is there truth and accuracy in the reports that Wikipedia did not attend yesterday’s summit? If so, does he share my disappointment, and does he feel that Wikipedia must take this issue seriously and engage with it?

      He replied
      > Unfortunately, those reports are true. I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that Wikipedia did not attend either of the two summits, despite having been invited. At yesterday’s summit, we agreed that we would get in touch with Wikipedia in robust terms, because it is not acceptable for it to shirk its social responsibilities either.

      So Wikipedia is an important part of this story. And you will have noticed that I asked Jimmy Wales to comment, and give Wikipedia’s side, something that hasn’t happened yet in the mainstream media.

      Edited: 2019-05-05 13:56:53 By Joseph Paxton (talk | contribs) + 140 Characters .. + 13% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Oh, so that’s why Wikipedia is relevant to the story. Okay, makes sense. Good work!

      2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us