←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 4 comments | 04 Sep 25 15:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.019s | source
Show context
bawolff ◴[04 Sep 25 16:49 UTC] No.45129304[source]▶
There has been this trend recently of calling Wikipedia the last good thing on the internet.

And i agree its great, i spend an inordinate amount of my time on Wikimedia related things.

But i think there is a danger here with all these articles putting Wikipedia too much on a pedestal. It isn't perfect. It isn't perfectly neutral or perfectly reliable. It has flaws.

The true best part of Wikipedia is that its a work in progress and people are working to make it a little better everyday. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact we aren't there yet. We'll never be "there". But hopefully we'll continue to be a little bit closer every day. And that is what makes Wikipedia great.

replies(28): >>45129452 #>>45129539 #>>45130082 #>>45130452 #>>45130510 #>>45130655 #>>45130889 #>>45131753 #>>45132388 #>>45133857 #>>45134041 #>>45134322 #>>45134802 #>>45135047 #>>45135272 #>>45135426 #>>45135634 #>>45135865 #>>45135925 #>>45136197 #>>45136339 #>>45136658 #>>45137707 #>>45139242 #>>45140012 #>>45140417 #>>45140938 #>>45148201 #
xorvoid ◴[04 Sep 25 17:50 UTC] No.45130082[source]▶
I would say this is all we really should reasonably expect from our knowledge consensus systems. In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our best everyday and continue to try improving.

It’s a bit hard for me to imagine something better (in practice). It’s easy to want more or feel like reality doesn’t live up to one’s idealism.

But we live here and now in the messiness of the present.

Viva la Wikipedia!

replies(3): >>45130299 #>>45130539 #>>45137130 #
1. thaumasiotes ◴[05 Sep 25 10:45 UTC] No.45137130[source]▶
> I would say this is all we really should reasonably expect from our knowledge consensus systems.

Compare this text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_configuration :

>> The most common labeling method uses the descriptors R or S and is based on the Cahn–Ingold–Prelog priority rules. R and S refer to rectus and sinister, Latin for right and left, respectively.[2]

This claim is actually repeated further down in the article. The fact that it is false was noted on the talk page seven years ago, but this seems to bother no one. After all, there's a citation.

I think we can reasonably expect more. Wikipedia reliably fails at very, very easy problems of "knowledge consensus".

replies(1): >>45137706 #
2. jasonlotito ◴[05 Sep 25 12:25 UTC] No.45137706[source]▶
> The fact that it is false was noted on the talk page seven years ago, but this seems to bother no one.

From the talk page:

"This is inaccurate, as the linked Wikitionary page defines rectus as straight, not right"

From the Wiktionary page referenced: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rectus

   - led straight along, drawn in a straight line, straight, upright. 
   - (in general) right, correct, proper, appropriate, befitting.
   - (in particular) morally right, correct, lawful, just, virtuous, noble, good, proper, honest.
The rest of talk page comment: "I was told during my education that the rectus-right definition was used by Robert Sidney Cahn as an excuse to use his own initials, although I cannot find a source to back that up."

So, the wiktionary page literally defines it as right, and we see that it's not about direction but about being correct or incorrect. And then the follow up has literally no source to back it up.

So... "I think we can reasonably expect more."

The first claim is debunked. The second claim has nothing to back it up.

Is your proposal then to accept lies and claims without evidence?

replies(2): >>45141708 #>>45146108 #
3. Idesmi ◴[05 Sep 25 18:11 UTC] No.45141708[source]▶
The first claim is correct, as the topic was direction, not correctness.
4. thaumasiotes ◴[06 Sep 25 02:32 UTC] No.45146108[source]▶
Ok, so you also failed at a very, very easy problem, but you're proud of that fact?

Question: in the phrase "right and left", what does right mean?