←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 2 comments | 04 Sep 25 15:30 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Whoppertime ◴[04 Sep 25 21:02 UTC] No.45132149[source]▶
Wikipedia is a good source for certain kinds of information. If you ask it about anything political it's going to be from a certain slant and the most informative part of the page will be the Talk page which explains what people would like on the page that isn't there, or shouldn't be on the page but is
replies(7): >>45132192 #>>45132209 #>>45132221 #>>45135506 #>>45137668 #>>45140158 #>>45148207 #
savef ◴[04 Sep 25 21:07 UTC] No.45132192[source]▶
What examples of this are there? I've usually found Wikipedia to be quite equal opportunity, well rounded, and factual.

They have their NPOV[1] policy, and seem impressively unbiased to me, given the various divisive situations they have to try to cover.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_v...

replies(6): >>45132402 #>>45134544 #>>45134915 #>>45135090 #>>45136773 #>>45141721 #
ljsprague ◴[05 Sep 25 04:53 UTC] No.45135090[source]▶
Race and IQ stuff.
replies(2): >>45135143 #>>45135363 #
1. hnpolicestate ◴[05 Sep 25 05:03 UTC] No.45135143[source]▶
Current geopolitical stuff too. Intelligence agencies use Wikipedia articles as propaganda tools. The Ukraine War articles are factually incorrect. To be expected with so much at stake.
replies(1): >>45136406 #
2. Cthulhu_ ◴[05 Sep 25 08:49 UTC] No.45136406[source]▶
Yeah I try to avoid pages on Ukraine and Israel, although admittely they don't shun away from the factual things that Israel did. I bet there's a lot of well-paid organizations keeping a sharp eye on a lot of more sensitive pages.

And of course famous people's PR people.