←back to thread

598 points leotravis10 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Aurornis ◴[] No.45129732[source]
In the past few years I've noticed more and more issues on Wikipedia. It has never been perfect, but in the past it seemed like anything without sufficient sources would quickly get flagged as "citation needed" or questionable statements would get a warning label slapped on them.

Now, I can visit pages for certain medical conditions that contain completely unsourced claims with no "citation needed" nor any warnings. When I try to search for it, I often trace it back to alternative medicine or pseudoscience influencers.

The sad part is that when I've tried to remove obviously flimsy information, someone will immediately come along and add it back. Unless you're ready to spend months in a Wikipedia edit war with someone who obsesses over a page, there's no point in even trying. These people know the rules and processes and will use every one of them against you. When that fails, they'll try to pull rank. If that fails, they'll just quietly continue editing and rewriting (possibly from alt accounts) until you get too tired to fight the battle any more.

replies(3): >>45129922 #>>45130409 #>>45135006 #
ars ◴[] No.45129922[source]
I've noticed this exact same thing. And I too just gave up. People have their pet causes and they force the article to match, and normal, non-obsessed people give up.

Any controversial topic should never be read on Wikipedia, it will not be accurate.

replies(2): >>45130104 #>>45130566 #
mothballed ◴[] No.45130104[source]
I noticed this during the election. As soon as Kamala become the contender, it was edited out that her father was described as a "marxist scholar" by a college newspaper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&...

replies(4): >>45130437 #>>45130772 #>>45135220 #>>45139239 #
altcognito ◴[] No.45130437[source]
Did you look into why? They always list the reasons. How long had it been on the page?
replies(1): >>45130485 #
mothballed ◴[] No.45130485[source]
It had been at least 2 years. [] Never became much of a contentious issue until Kamala was looking at the presidential nomination, from what I can tell, then suddenly there was a vicious fight to remove it based on reasoning that mysteriously didn't exist for years and years before that.

[] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&...

Edit: at least ~4 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&...

replies(1): >>45130624 #
IAmBroom ◴[] No.45130624[source]
Or, it wasn't important enough to merit editorial discussion prior to that.
replies(1): >>45130783 #
1. mothballed ◴[] No.45130783{3}[source]
Flipping

>Any controversial topic should never be read on Wikipedia, it will not be accurate.

to

>A controversial topic will become important enough to merit editorial discussion

Is an interesting point. I think I will vouch you just for the genius of flipping it.