←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 5 comments | 04 Sep 25 15:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.022s | source
Show context
glitchc ◴[04 Sep 25 19:45 UTC] No.45131455[source]▶
Wikipedia has plenty of propaganda. It's often at the fringes of knowledge, in niche subjects where there isn't yet an established group of proponents and detractors. It can be quite subtle too, will fool most laypeople, even those who are otherwise intellectually savvy.

It's only when a subject becomes popular that the propaganda gets recognized and rectified.

replies(1): >>45131735 #
voxl ◴[04 Sep 25 20:13 UTC] No.45131735[source]▶
And? Share an example. This reads like conspiratorial thinking without any evidence.
replies(10): >>45131956 #>>45132128 #>>45132585 #>>45132685 #>>45133883 #>>45134710 #>>45135434 #>>45135557 #>>45137461 #>>45137826 #
1. Andrex ◴[04 Sep 25 20:37 UTC] No.45131956[source]▶
Not the OP but I'll back him up, and I'll edit this comment when I come across them. They're pretty common. If the domain of knowledge is niche and the page is absolutely huge, that's a good sign to start looking for editoralizations and slants.

A lot of wiki pages about smaller companies only list the good things (fundraising, tech, etc.) and omit any controversies. The deliberate omissions due to bias are even more insidious than weasel words or other forms of poor journalism.

Fwiw I truly believe in Wikipedia and donate every year, but calling it "perfect" would be extremely dangerous (and false!)

replies(4): >>45132563 #>>45136210 #>>45137773 #>>45154920 #
2. glitchc ◴[04 Sep 25 21:43 UTC] No.45132563[source]▶
Thanks! I've noticed this for descriptions of political individuals, entities and current events in offbeat parts of the world, where coverage of such in mainstream media is slim to non-existent.
3. jajko ◴[05 Sep 25 08:15 UTC] No.45136210[source]▶
Perfect it ain't, I never even heard anybody actually relevant state that, by the core principle of it it can't be.

But, its by far the best human-averaged source of info on most topics. I'd say even politically charged topics, definitely much better than most news out there who always show some clear bias.

Its not exhaustive (another common complain form folks who seek visibility by complaining and denigrating stuff for the heck of it or some immature popularity), its not meant to be. You also don't do postgrad level physics studies from Encyclopædia Britannica, do you, but it may give you some shallow introduction to orientate in the field a bit.

4. 2OEH8eoCRo0 ◴[05 Sep 25 12:33 UTC] No.45137773[source]▶
Why do we keep going out of our way to call it "not perfect?" Nothing in the world is perfect. It's a meaningless phrase.

Just because we don't enumerate Wikipedia's faults doesn't mean we think it's perfect.

5. straydusk ◴[07 Sep 25 02:40 UTC] No.45154920[source]▶
Share an example then