←back to thread

House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

(thehill.com)
152 points xqcgrek2 | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 18:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.254s | source
Show context
OsrsNeedsf2P ◴[27 Aug 25 19:27 UTC] No.45043941[source]▶
I used to (and still am) one of the highest ranked editors you can be without becoming an administrator. Wikipedia has its problems, and I spent years fighting them- but I slowly realized there is no better way to do it.

Wikipedia is not an arbitrator of truth: everything needs a reliable, secondary source[0]. This means the content has to be notable enough that a reputable source wrote about it, and you cannot reference things like git commits or research papers (since they don't provide context and most people can't understand them).

If a Wikipedia article does use one of those sources, delete the paragraph. If you get into an Edit war, you'll win.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

replies(3): >>45044060 #>>45046746 #>>45049559 #
1. serain ◴[27 Aug 25 23:57 UTC] No.45046746[source]▶
this is false. all you have to do is see a mildly controversial article like "woman". it is all opinionated. and citing sources to add similar content to "man" would not work. you can go to history and see the comment form the woman who started much of it, saying something like "trying to start something here" and since then, it is like this.