2 ms·

>The problem with only accepting "reliable sources" is that that leads, essentially, to only parroting what is frequently heard in the mainstream media That is

>The problem with only accepting "reliable sources" is that that leads, essentially, to only parroting what is frequently heard in the mainstream media That is the whole point of wikipedia...it parrots the sources without trying to determine what the truth is. If you accept that limitation, wikipedia works very well. > I think it's a mistake to claim mainstream publications are de-facto sources of truth Wikipedia specifically does NOT attempt to get to the truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t... >A single Google search will bring you face-to-face with the evidence A single google search informed me that a wiki-PR company had been systematically investigated and then banned. Looking at the individual edits (e.g. on Naomi Campbell's page) shows that most of them have been reverted, proving that wikipedia works. (There will always be way more wikipedia editors than PR people for any particular article).

cookiecaper 11y ago
>That is the whole point of wikipedia...it parrots the sources without trying to determine what the truth is. If you accept that limitation, wikipedia works very well. I thought that the goal was to represent "the sum of all human knowledge"? I will agree that if you accept Wikipedia as a summary of contemporary news reports, then it's probably not that bad (but many articles will need to be dumbed down significantly to meet this standard). That's not my understanding of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. >Wikipedia specifically does NOT attempt to get to the truth If that policy were followed, it would be fine; we wouldn't hear "oh, well, we can't trust Local County News, they're probably not big enough" or "Well, you can't trust $ARTICLE_SUBJECT to provide an accurate account" because it wouldn't matter. It would only matter that the account could be verified as authentic-ish with reasonable confidence. IMO that's a pretty low bar, but most Wikipedia source nazis seem to insist on a major mainstream publication like the NYT. This works out conveniently if you find yourself philosophically or politically aligned with NYT. >A single google search informed me that a wiki-PR company had been systematically investigated and then banned. This is really just intentional ignorance. It's like insisting there is no astroturfing on HN, reddit, or Facebook. WP is actively manipulated as a routine part of brand management and public relations. The first hit for "wikipedia page management" is http://www.prnewsonline.com/topics/pr-insiders/2013/04/16/why-wikipedia-matters-and-how-to-follow-their-rules http://www.prnewsonline.com/topics/pr-insiders/2013/04/16/wh... ; literally a howto on manipulating Wikipedia for brand managers. While this one repeats the rule not to edit directly, other hits on the first page interpret that for us to "never edit directly from your company's IP address", which I'm 100% confident is the method of 95% of WP-aware brand managers out there.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  >most Wikipedia source nazis seem to insist on a major mainstream publication like the NYT That is another basic wikipedia policy. Some sources are more reliable than others. Most people would agree that NYT is more reliable than the Drumheller Mail. >It's like insisting there is no astroturfing on HN, reddit, or Facebook I didn't say it doesn't happen. I'm saying it's not a significant issue, because there are more editors than PR people on each page. Can you give a single instance of this being a problem on a current wikipedia page? I've already asked DanBC for specific instances of problems, and he hasn't managed to come up with anything either. There are lots of people complaining about wikipedia, but very few if any instances of actual problems.

cookiecaper 11y ago

>That is the whole point of wikipedia...it parrots the sources without trying to determine what the truth is. If you accept that limitation, wikipedia works very well. I thought that the goal was to represent "the sum of all human knowledge"? I will agree that if you accept Wikipedia as a summary of contemporary news reports, then it's probably not that bad (but many articles will need to be dumbed down significantly to meet this standard). That's not my understanding of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. >Wikipedia specifically does NOT attempt to get to the truth If that policy were followed, it would be fine; we wouldn't hear "oh, well, we can't trust Local County News, they're probably not big enough" or "Well, you can't trust $ARTICLE_SUBJECT to provide an accurate account" because it wouldn't matter. It would only matter that the account could be verified as authentic-ish with reasonable confidence. IMO that's a pretty low bar, but most Wikipedia source nazis seem to insist on a major mainstream publication like the NYT. This works out conveniently if you find yourself philosophically or politically aligned with NYT. >A single google search informed me that a wiki-PR company had been systematically investigated and then banned. This is really just intentional ignorance. It's like insisting there is no astroturfing on HN, reddit, or Facebook. WP is actively manipulated as a routine part of brand management and public relations. The first hit for "wikipedia page management" is http://www.prnewsonline.com/topics/pr-insiders/2013/04/16/why-wikipedia-matters-and-how-to-follow-their-rules http://www.prnewsonline.com/topics/pr-insiders/2013/04/16/wh... ; literally a howto on manipulating Wikipedia for brand managers. While this one repeats the rule not to edit directly, other hits on the first page interpret that for us to "never edit directly from your company's IP address", which I'm 100% confident is the method of 95% of WP-aware brand managers out there.

cpncrunch 11y ago
>most Wikipedia source nazis seem to insist on a major mainstream publication like the NYT That is another basic wikipedia policy. Some sources are more reliable than others. Most people would agree that NYT is more reliable than the Drumheller Mail. >It's like insisting there is no astroturfing on HN, reddit, or Facebook I didn't say it doesn't happen. I'm saying it's not a significant issue, because there are more editors than PR people on each page. Can you give a single instance of this being a problem on a current wikipedia page? I've already asked DanBC for specific instances of problems, and he hasn't managed to come up with anything either. There are lots of people complaining about wikipedia, but very few if any instances of actual problems.