←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 1 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 #
1. Levitz ◴[05 Sep 25 09:47 UTC] No.45136773[source]▶
The article for Gamergate is basically an entire page ultimately sourcing from games journalism outlets when it was explicitly about calling out games journalism and collusion in the industry.

And being fair, if there's one weakness in a site which relies on several sources agreeing on something it surely is when those sources are colluding on something, but the end result is a page rife with misinformation.

This is prevalent in culture wars stuff, Keffals article "graciously" fails to mention how she frequently lied and instigated vast amounts of harassment towards herself or how she basically spent the GoFundMe money she campaigned for on heroin. If the media spins a narrative, Wikipedia doesn't really have a counter to that in any way.