←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 #
ljsprague ◴[05 Sep 25 04:53 UTC] No.45135090[source]▶
Race and IQ stuff.
replies(2): >>45135143 #>>45135363 #
creatonez ◴[05 Sep 25 05:51 UTC] No.45135363[source]▶
You're mad Wikipedia doesn't parrot thoroughly debunked eugenics arguments?
replies(1): >>45136213 #
ljsprague ◴[05 Sep 25 08:16 UTC] No.45136213{3}[source]▶
The fact that you jumped to "eugenics" proves my point.
replies(1): >>45136347 #
creatonez ◴[05 Sep 25 08:39 UTC] No.45136347{4}[source]▶
The fact that you can't correctly identify debunked claims about a connection between race and IQ as inherently eugenicist talking points and instead quickly resorted to obfuscation proves my point.
replies(1): >>45137830 #
joenot443 ◴[05 Sep 25 12:41 UTC] No.45137830{5}[source]▶
This is a pretty severe leap of logic; respectfully it seems to me like both of you are sort of talking past each other here.

Why don’t you just say what you mean? Not everything is about proving points or “winning”, it’s okay to just have honest discussion.

replies(1): >>45142339 #
1. creatonez ◴[05 Sep 25 19:03 UTC] No.45142339{6}[source]▶
What I'm saying: Because Wikipedia is a premier world-class source in debunking scientific racism, presents a constellation of facts that are rather damaging to frauds like Charles Murray, and has likely prevented the radicalization of tens of thousands of people... nearly every single critic of Wikipedia on this particular topic is a scientific racist. Which is a set of positions indistinguishable from eugenics. Pretty much without exception.