4 ms·

Topics of contention between two nations (or worse, between two political factions inside a nation) are usually suspect. Even if every sentence is meticulously

by yongjik 10y ago

Topics of contention between two nations (or worse, between two political factions inside a nation) are usually suspect. Even if every sentence is meticulously sourced, you can't tell if someone is "lying by omission." Basically, the tone of the article is determined by which country (or faction) can muster more people with free time and passable English skills, which may not correspond to actual expertise on the topic... I agree that math/physics sections are pretty good. It's difficult for knowledgeable people to disagree on these matters...

jessriedel 10y ago
> Even if every sentence is meticulously sourced, you can't tell if someone is "lying by omission." This is a problem for literally every source on Earth, and persists even among the most prestigious newspapers, books, etc.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > This is a problem for literally every source on Earth, and persists even among the most prestigious newspapers, books, etc. That's true but practically meaningless. Some sources are dramatically more reliable and accurate than others. I can't completely trust my 4 year old nephew about physics, nor can I completely trust a leading physics text book, but that doesn't make those sources similarly reliable. What we're discussing here is where Wikipedia falls on that continuum. I agree with the GP; there is so much deception by omission in WP that I don't trust it. For example, I was just looking at (American) football player Peyton Manning's article; it completely omitted a major sexual assault/harassment allegation, one about which there was a court settlement, book, major news coverage, etc.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    I mean explicitly that Wikipedia does as least as good on lying by omission as the most reputable sources (NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, whatever).
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Surely there must be some significant differences? It's hard to believe they are all the same. Claiming they are all the same is a strategy of propagandists (I'm not saying you are one; I'm saying it's a dubious approach). 'It's all the same' is the opposite of truth and accuracy, which require discernment; it the justification of liars (again, not the parent). Anyway, the parent's claim isn't my experience, but now we're just one person on the Internet disagreeing with another.
      - jessriedel 10y ago
        I'm not saying their all the same. I'm saying Wikipedia is generally better (though of course far from perfect), without trying to make difficult-to-quantify claims about how much better.
  - milesrout 10y ago
    The Biographies of Living Persons policy is rather strict, because of the potential for libel lawsuits. The Wikipedia foundation can barely afford to keep Wikipedia running as it is, let alone deal with hundreds of libel lawsuits.
DanBC 10y ago
> It's difficult for knowledgeable people to disagree on these matters... See eg "Speed of light" for an example of the complications that people get into in writing an article that's readable by the general population, but which is also correct for the 5% of wikipedia editors who have a good grasp on this. See this thread for an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13468651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13468651

by yongjik 10y ago

jessriedel 10y ago

> Even if every sentence is meticulously sourced, you can't tell if someone is "lying by omission." This is a problem for literally every source on Earth, and persists even among the most prestigious newspapers, books, etc.

hackuser 10y ago
> This is a problem for literally every source on Earth, and persists even among the most prestigious newspapers, books, etc. That's true but practically meaningless. Some sources are dramatically more reliable and accurate than others. I can't completely trust my 4 year old nephew about physics, nor can I completely trust a leading physics text book, but that doesn't make those sources similarly reliable. What we're discussing here is where Wikipedia falls on that continuum. I agree with the GP; there is so much deception by omission in WP that I don't trust it. For example, I was just looking at (American) football player Peyton Manning's article; it completely omitted a major sexual assault/harassment allegation, one about which there was a court settlement, book, major news coverage, etc.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  I mean explicitly that Wikipedia does as least as good on lying by omission as the most reputable sources (NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, whatever).
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Surely there must be some significant differences? It's hard to believe they are all the same. Claiming they are all the same is a strategy of propagandists (I'm not saying you are one; I'm saying it's a dubious approach). 'It's all the same' is the opposite of truth and accuracy, which require discernment; it the justification of liars (again, not the parent). Anyway, the parent's claim isn't my experience, but now we're just one person on the Internet disagreeing with another.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      I'm not saying their all the same. I'm saying Wikipedia is generally better (though of course far from perfect), without trying to make difficult-to-quantify claims about how much better.
- milesrout 10y ago
  The Biographies of Living Persons policy is rather strict, because of the potential for libel lawsuits. The Wikipedia foundation can barely afford to keep Wikipedia running as it is, let alone deal with hundreds of libel lawsuits.

DanBC 10y ago

> It's difficult for knowledgeable people to disagree on these matters... See eg "Speed of light" for an example of the complications that people get into in writing an article that's readable by the general population, but which is also correct for the 5% of wikipedia editors who have a good grasp on this. See this thread for an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13468651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13468651