4 ms·
Interesting point about the difficulty of removing fake news: >> On Wikipedia, you have the freedom to set up an account, log in, and edit any entry you like
by kristianp 10y ago
Interesting point about the difficulty of removing fake news:
>> On Wikipedia, you have the freedom to set up an account, log in, and edit any entry you like. You can change the name of George Washington to Billy-Bob Washypants if you like. You can say he’s still alive and sells insurance in New Jersey. You can say he has sixteen cats and has gone vegan. Whatever. Will your edits stick? No. That’s the point. The openness of Wikipedia is the outworking of a philosophy that truth, when crowdsourced, is just as strong — if not stronger — than when managed by a select few. Now, one too many bogus edits and you’ll be banned from Wikipedia, which is, again, in line with their philosophy. If your intent toward information is chaotic-evil, fine, but you’re not entitled to go about your trickster ways anywhere you like, and Wikipedia is entitled to kick you out. So how about Facebook? On Facebook, only the original creator of a post on Facebook can edit it. The crowd has no recourse but to complain to Facebook, and Facebook, of course, has already said that the content isn’t their problem.
- ue_ 10y ago>The openness of Wikipedia is the outworking of a philosophy that truth, when crowdsourced, is just as strong — if not stronger — than when managed by a select few. Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't like this in practice. There are several articles written in a quite biased way, with biased references, which are then locked at various thresholds. Wikipedia, just as the democracy it relies on, is no truth machine.
- chrbutler 10y agoInteresting. I'd love to learn more about that. What do you mean by "locked"?