←back to thread

House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

(thehill.com)
156 points xqcgrek2 | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 18:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | 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. breppp ◴[28 Aug 25 07:47 UTC] No.45049559[source]▶
Today, with infinite information you can always find a source no matter how low quality and place it in equal setting with a high quality source.

Then it is suddenly "However"

If someone challenges you, you have infinite time due to obsession or being paid. You can then quote a barrage of wikipedia rules until the other side submits.

If whatever side of the "truth" has a time advantage, they will usually win. That's very common on topics that attract the obsessed, and the end result does not usually correlate with reality