←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 3 comments | 04 Sep 25 15:30 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
citizenpaul ◴[05 Sep 25 03:44 UTC] No.45134802[source]▶
I'm not so sure I go there less and less. Wikipedia is very biased and turf guarded against negative factually true information even when it meets all requirements it will often be taken down automatically with no recourse. Many pages are functionally not editable because of turf guarding.

Anything vaguely sociopolitical is functionally censored on it and wikipedia does nothing about it even if they don't support it.

replies(4): >>45134830 #>>45136387 #>>45137037 #>>45142225 #
LastTrain ◴[05 Sep 25 03:50 UTC] No.45134830[source]▶
There is no such thing as unbiased. Maybe it simply doesn’t match your bias.
replies(2): >>45135112 #>>45136648 #
d0mine ◴[05 Sep 25 04:58 UTC] No.45135112[source]▶
There is a difference between unintentionally introducing a bias and propaganda . The latter is a guided by professionals. It is not an accident.
replies(1): >>45137784 #
LastTrain ◴[05 Sep 25 12:34 UTC] No.45137784[source]▶
You are accusing Wikipedia of spreading propaganda? On behalf of who?
replies(1): >>45137888 #
1. antonymoose ◴[05 Sep 25 12:47 UTC] No.45137888{3}[source]▶
Wikipedia isn’t a person. Wikipedia isn’t doing anything.

Individuals and groups, be they ad-hoc formations, corporate backed, or nation-state backed routinely astroturf all corners of the internet and Wikipedia is a very big, very common target.

replies(1): >>45140718 #
2. LastTrain ◴[05 Sep 25 16:51 UTC] No.45140718[source]▶
Sure but this thread is in response to a statement starting with "Wikipedia is biased".
replies(1): >>45144173 #
3. citizenpaul ◴[05 Sep 25 22:03 UTC] No.45144173[source]▶
I actually used the word biased in hopes of avoiding triggering someone like you by what I really meant. It is full of propaganda. Funded PR firm intentional propaganda and Wikipedia is complicit because they allow the propaganda they agree with and block the propaganda they do not agree with.

No I will not waste my time researching proof for someone that is being intentionally obtuse. If you have interest you can easily find it by doing some research.