Continuing the discussion from 'Climate Friendly' Browsers & Internet Search Companies:
Where did you source that information about Ecosia wikipedia page being controversial?
The ‘talk’ page is empty - Talk:Ecosia - Wikipedia
That is interesting, and not something I have seen before. It appears that someone has actually deleted all the previous ‘talk’. In positive news, Wikipedia keeps track of its own history, so you can view the history of the talk page and look at snapshots in time. When I commented on the Ecosia talk page, I was looking at this.
It appears that the talk history was archived by user Paul2520 on 27 February 2022.
If you ever change anything on Wikipedia, there is a record of that change somewhere. I suspect the only thing that is ever truly deleted is proprietary information (e.g. images/video). So somewhere on Wikipedia there is a history page about my proposal that an Australian president be chosen from the ranks of former captains of the national cricket teams (which was deleted almost immediately as being original/single unreliable source).
2 Likes
Perhaps not too well timed a shot considering more recent options?
All higher profile candidates are effectively captive employees of a sporting business model. One might expect that to have some broad corporate appeal. Why limit it to only a cricketer, especially with national sponsorship to consider? And who would be your choice for the umpires? Possibly a corporate opening or two to sponsor these august professionals. 
You don’t understand the role of religion in our society. The captain of the First Eleven is nearer apotheosis than any cardinal.
1 Like
It was well before any sandpaper started appearing on the field.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question.
It was many years ago, I wrote a blog post suggesting that former test cricket captains would be as good as anyone our political leaders might suggest, and I got creative and linked to it on Wikipedia.
Actually, having a look back at the post (which has been read by 49 people), it appears that I misspoke about my suggestion. I actually proposed that we retain the constitutional monarchy but replace the current royal family with a former test cricket captain for life. The monarchy would then be passed on to another worthy cricket captain, chosen by lot. I was even farsighted enough to require that the person in the role will not have been found guilty of a sporting offence!
While I did not propose any specific change in title, maybe they should be referred to as Her/His Royal Cricketer?
Warning: if you do happen to find the post based upon this description, my blog is very seldom updated and contains what can at best be described as an ‘eclectic’ range of posts.
Best understood in the context that reserving the position for a cricketer, historically male and white and …. is outdated and possibly questionable given the more inclusive ambitions of todays society.
Perhaps those using Wikipedia saw the implications and risks in suggesting a special role in our democracy for the reverent Aussie Cricket Captain.
It’s reassuring to know the model provided by Wikipedia allows for reasoned amendments. Whether it serves the common good I’d only be speculating.
No, they just saw that I used an ‘unreliable source’ and possibly ‘original research’.
I am generally supportive of Wikipedia’s model of open editing, but have found that in some rarely visited corners of the website there are ‘experts’ who are more than a little blinkered - to be polite.
3 Likes
