3 ms·

> these days the issue has been "resolved" by having an entire section called "ponzi scheme dispute" that consists merely of different pundits contradicting eac

> these days the issue has been "resolved" by having an entire section called "ponzi scheme dispute" that consists merely of different pundits contradicting each other. IMHO that is a good thing more often that not. It means that someone who has heard the rumour will check Wikipedia and find a couple paragraphs about the subject, with links to the most trusted agreed-upon references about who said what. The alternative is not having the section and requiring those same readers to search their own way through the internet, without having any idea of what sources to trust, and likely getting only one side of the controversy.

mike_hearn 11y ago
It's definitely a better situation than it was, insomuch as at least people can make up their mind about it. That said, call me a pedant, but the term has a clear definition. The statement is either right or wrong. Being able to cite people who merely assert an opinion doesn't make them automatically worth having on an encyclopedia page. As examples, the wiki page for Barack Obama doesn't mention the claim that he's a Muslim or that his birth certificate was faked anywhere .... because it's factually incorrect nonsense that shouldn't be on a wiki page. Ditto for the page on climate change. But this sort of thing seems very hit or miss. Whether pages can be kept factual or not seems to depend just as much on whether someone reverts every change to the page, as the facts themselves.
- ErrantX 11y ago
  Mostly it's about recentism. Wikipedia, as all encyclopedias, is usually very good for stuff that doesn't change frequently or in large amounts. But there is a continuing problem with recent and current events. You get a lot of people trying to produce a single article, and disputes occur. One example: the Amanda Knox article spent literally years in a slow-moving and entrenched edit war (which nearly gave me a hernia trying to unpick) over whether she was guilty or not - all of which was up in the air due to pending court cases. As soon as the case died down and tied up, the article instantly became a dead zone and is mostly OK.

mike_hearn 11y ago

It's definitely a better situation than it was, insomuch as at least people can make up their mind about it. That said, call me a pedant, but the term has a clear definition. The statement is either right or wrong. Being able to cite people who merely assert an opinion doesn't make them automatically worth having on an encyclopedia page. As examples, the wiki page for Barack Obama doesn't mention the claim that he's a Muslim or that his birth certificate was faked anywhere .... because it's factually incorrect nonsense that shouldn't be on a wiki page. Ditto for the page on climate change. But this sort of thing seems very hit or miss. Whether pages can be kept factual or not seems to depend just as much on whether someone reverts every change to the page, as the facts themselves.

ErrantX 11y ago
Mostly it's about recentism. Wikipedia, as all encyclopedias, is usually very good for stuff that doesn't change frequently or in large amounts. But there is a continuing problem with recent and current events. You get a lot of people trying to produce a single article, and disputes occur. One example: the Amanda Knox article spent literally years in a slow-moving and entrenched edit war (which nearly gave me a hernia trying to unpick) over whether she was guilty or not - all of which was up in the air due to pending court cases. As soon as the case died down and tied up, the article instantly became a dead zone and is mostly OK.