Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/Eyewitness Wikimedian, Kharkiv, Ukraine

← Back to Eyewitness Wikimedian, Kharkiv, Ukraine

Discuss this story

• User:Kharkivian, hope you are safe. Do you have Venmo? How can I support the work you are doing? Schierbecker (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Venmo is only available in the US.

Hoping too that he is safe – at least he is still uploading images. Thanks a lot, User:Kharkivian, for your contributions in a very dangerous environment. Albinfo (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Never head of Venmo. PayPal is more international; in either case, if some Wikipedians in Ukraine needs support, I hope Signpost will make sure we know the details. I'd be happy to offer some financial assistance (for now I just donate to general refugee supporting NGOs in Poland). Slava Ukrainie! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If The Signpost were to publish a list of Wikimedians in Ukraine that need aid and their preferred payment method, I'd be down! Schierbecker (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Schierbecker: Venmo is indeed not available in Ukraine, but you can support the organization Serhii is part of via PayPal or bank transfer, here's the info (note that it's not a Wikimedian organization). --Aced (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wikimedia Ukraine just published a version of this article on their blog [1][2]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Why are the buildings in these 3 photos described as "destroyed", instead of "damaged" or "heavily damaged"? IMHO, for a building to be considered destroyed, they would need to be in a far more ruinous condition. However, it may be each of these has suffered serious structural damage which makes repair or rehabilitation impractical -- in which case, that should be explicitly noted. (For example, "damaged building, condemned by local authorities".) -- llywrch (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

For simplicity, I guess. Tube·of·Light 03:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

We can discuss choice of words, but when the apartment building is so severely damaged that it's impossible to live in (as opposed to light damage like broken windows), it's effectively destroyed as a living space. Aced (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of the buildings shown are not destroyed and are habitable. Some of them probably still have habitants who don't have where to go. Destroyed means rubble, no walls or ceilings. Baxbox (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If structural damage renders them unsound, they are effectively destroyed (death traps). Without knowing the actual status (and the odds are the local conditions are preventing a throughout analysis by a building safety inspectors), the difference is not major, particularly as it is likely after the war they'll be torn down anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Destroyed means rubble" - Wiktionary disagrees, offering a different definition: "to damage beyond use or repair." Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikitionary is a WIKI. Not a reliable source. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• In WWII London the question of whether a damaged house was still liveable was decided by local officials (usually police) in conjunction with builders. I imagine the difference here is the more complete breakdown of local administrative structure, as User:Piotrus suggests. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)