3 ms·
You make a good point, Wikipedia has seemed to be (or at least there wasn't a recent major controversy) immune to much of this 'fake news' / 'mainstream conspir
by kylehotchkiss 10y ago
You make a good point, Wikipedia has seemed to be (or at least there wasn't a recent major controversy) immune to much of this 'fake news' / 'mainstream conspiracy theories' movement. Wonder what their secret is. I'm sure it's an editorial war front there.
- joatmon-snoo 10y agoIt seems to be in large part due to (1) articles that require strong background knowledge tend to only be edited by appropriately knowledgeable authorities (e.g. higher level maths, quantum dynamics) and (2) editing privileges for highly controversial articles tends to be very tightly controlled. There's also an interesting trend wherein Wikipedia editors tend to drift to the political center: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somethings-terribly-wrong-with-the-internet-and-wikipedia-might-be-able-to-fix-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somet...
- fjdlwlv 10y agoThe mystery is why wikipedia hasn't been hijacked by rogue editors yet. What is the defense mechanism? Do the original founders still have ultima control? Have they carefully chosen deputies?