Comments on: What’s in a name? In the case of ‘wiki’, lots of things. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/ News from the Wikimedia Foundation and about the Wikimedia movement Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:06:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6-beta2-24176 By: jillian s http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/comment-page-2/#comment-5747 jillian s Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:35:53 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2694#comment-5747 no, gabe — answers.com says “enkuklios paideia” is the source of the word enclycopedia, with paideia meaning a general education, and i think that’s a lot more plausible …

]]> By: Danno http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/comment-page-2/#comment-5739 Danno Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:05:35 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2694#comment-5739 Gabe, who believes that criticism of Wikileaks can lead to “the permanent demise of free speech as well as journalistic freedom” clearly doesn’t understand journalism, much less “journalistic freedom.” Those of us who work in the field know that the first obligation of journalism is to seek the response of all involved parties before publishing. To do otherwise is to turn rumor into fact, suggestion into reality, and – too often – sheer dirt into fool’s gold. By Gabe’s description, it would be an expression of “journalistic freedom” were I to break into his home, steal his checkbook, and publish his account numbers, passwords, and other vital information without first giving him the chance to explain why I shouldn’t.

For Wikileaks to acquire privileged information isn’t necessarily reprehensible; for them to publish it without first giving the State Department the opportunity to explain the consequent risks is a violation of all journalistic standards. I’m not saying Wikileaks would or should cede final responsibility for the decision to publish; I’m only saying that publishing without any regard for consequences is the act of the foolish, the childish, the desperately cynical, or the selfishly irresponsible.

]]> By: ideston http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/comment-page-2/#comment-5695 ideston Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:00:49 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2694#comment-5695 I am a big fan of Wikipedia.

Trust me. If you have superior trade mark firm you can make the claim to “secondary” meaning in many, many regions/markets of the world with the name “Wikipedia”

Wikileaks is such a very strong association with Wikipedia that I at first def associated it with Wikipedia. And I am not dumb either!!!! I am an ordinary person but I am in the branding business….if I were YOU I would move to cease and desist and claim the rights to “Wiki” on the basis that YOU made it broadly famous in primary markets of the world…just do the research …let the data speak for itself with how many ordinary people associate Wikileaks with Wikipedia…and I might add with no other “Wiki” name. None of the other Wiki names you mention above made it globally famous like Wikipedia did…
Do the research and claim secondary meaning !

]]> By: Gabe http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-5689 Gabe Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:17:42 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2694#comment-5689 I would say that about 60 to 70 % of all progressive readers care very little for people’s simplistic and predictable contributions here that try to apologize for any association with or distance themselves from Wikileaks. These contributions are behind the times as well as clumsy and the contributors obviously can’t see the woods for all the trees, in other words the bigger picture.
The issue at hand here is the possible and permanent demise of free speech as well as journalistic freedom and license!

]]> By: VICTOR H. FRANCO http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-5671 VICTOR H. FRANCO Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:19:56 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2694#comment-5671 Sorry for not replying about “Wikileaks”, not having informative news about this matter in Baja California, Mexico. Educated friends here in Baja are generally doctors, not knowing of Wikipedia, thinking that Wikileaks is a new name(Wiki)…much less equating Wikipedia with Wikileaks…
I am just informing myself what group or person “leaked” government documents to the public specifically, the world generally… except for third world countries.
To date, I shamefully, don’t know who made public these sensitive documents, but I will do my best to inform myself in the near future.

]]> By: Gabe http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-5665 Gabe Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:06:04 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2694#comment-5665 @Dominique
Ever heard of “Encyclopedia” Dominique? Or Paediatrics? Or Pedagogics? “Pedia” is Greek and means “pertaining to children or child”. Wikipedia means “fast child”… ;-)

]]> By: someone http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-5651 someone Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:43:25 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2694#comment-5651 It isn’t wikipedia, i think they choose the name because wikipedia is a well known source of information. So with people making wikipedia short to wiki, they want to tell us there good too

]]> By: Dominique http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-5634 Dominique Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:07:42 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2694#comment-5634 So if Wiki means quick pedia means ?

]]> By: g hudson smith http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-5633 g hudson smith Wed, 15 Dec 2010 04:56:49 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2694#comment-5633 Is it not unusual for the same sentence be used by two people who post? Number 5 and 10 must have a talking points bulletin.

]]> By: Mono http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/12/09/what%e2%80%99s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-%e2%80%98wiki%e2%80%99-lots-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-5581 Mono Tue, 14 Dec 2010 04:11:13 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2694#comment-5581 [IN REPLY TO COMMENT 5468 FROM @Cori Salmon Photography]

While we may differ in viewpoints about WikiLeaks’ mission, Wikipedia strives to be uncensored. You are right; major governments do make significant contributions to Wikipedia content to shape it in a way that benefits their cause. Much of major government content is public domain, which makes it usable on Wikipedia (this is also a contributing factor). It’s also so popular (you can get everyone to think things based on our content).

Anyway, with an “anyone can edit” model, biases do happen, but don’t think of Wikipedia as a government-written puppet.

]]>