7 ms·

The Shining light of Wikipedia and other disappointments

33 points by hoofish 9y ago

edoceo 9y ago
Perspective seems clear and we'll reasoned to me. Until Wales is compared to Trump.
- hoofish 9y ago
  good point
zenkat 9y ago
Reading between the lines, this appears to be someone who has tried to alter Wikipedia to support fringe scientists & alt-medicine gurus like Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra. So I all a bit skeptical of his motives. Does anyone know the other side of the story?
- mangecoeur 9y ago
  I saw that too, mixed in with likely legit criticism of the possibility of editors abusing their power in the community and possibly too much orthodoxy squashing less popular views, is the fact that they want there to be more prominence for ideas that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny - and worse, can create confusion among lay people about what constitutes a valid scientific theory.
  - hoofish 9y ago
    where specifically do you see that? It is detailed and mentioned both on Wikipedia itself and the website that the focus was on non controversial biographical information and had nothing to do with the ideas or the theories.
- zenkat 9y ago
  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    This is addressed here: http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/11/how-rational-wiki-abuses-its-google-page-rank-for-personal-attacks-slander-and-harassment/ http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/11/how-rational-wiki...
    - cholantesh 9y ago
      Viharo only quotes the RW article's preamble. The body of the article is more than ample in providing detail and citations to back itself up.
      - hoofish 9y ago
        are you actually defending the RW article? It's obvious hatch job. The rationalwiki article references itself when it says "Viharo has a persecution complex.." and states that the entire site is a conspiracy theory and no evidence has been found for harassment"...with no reference what so ever.
- hoofish 9y ago
  Where do you see any evidence of the author trying to alter Wikipedia to promote fringe science? You list RationalWiki as the "other side of the story", yet did you note that article was written by the same editors he encountered on Wikipedia? If you spend more time on the site, you will see that the case study involved intentional patience and only focused on non controversial biographical information. You appear to suggest that the context of the biographies the author was editing on means he was promoting or editing false or misleading information, and therefore perhaps deserved the treatment.
  - zenkat 9y ago
    I asked for the other side of the story. RationalWiki appears to fit that bill. I made no judgments on the merits of either side of the squabble. I trust the readers of HN are capable of forming their own judgements based on available evidence.
    - hoofish 9y ago
      you specifically said "who has tried to alter Wikipedia to support fringe scientists & alt-medicine gurus" That narrative is from RationalWiki, and is misinformation. This is very clearly detailed on the website.
      - cholantesh 9y ago
        It isn't, though. I suspect you have only read Viharo's defense, which, tellingly, doesn't link to his RW article. It simply quotes from the preamble. The rest of the article expands significantly on it and cites his own words from Wikipedia talk pages.
        hoofish 9y ago
        again, you're misinformed. it links DIRECTLY to the RW article, and that article is mentioned in many pages on WWHP. It links to comments made on talk pages out of context, read the actual links to WP pages and you will see.
- krelnik42 9y ago
  I wrote a blog post about the guy behind this website. He claims to be some sort of expert who tried to "study" editor interactions on Wikipedia. He's actually a social media & SEO marketing guy in California who likes to troll skeptics and science people online in his spare time. I analyzed the editing history of the articles involved in this blog post, and show that he is not in any way serious in his interactions on Wikipedia. https://skeptools.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/nothere-wikipedia-craig-weiler-rome-viharo-tumbleman-rupert-sheldrake/ https://skeptools.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/nothere-wikipedia...
luhn 9y ago
> Jimbo Wales, in touting the value of overcoming fake news with his new WikiTribune, is without realizing it admitting to the utter corruption of the Wikipedia model. The author makes this assertion and then quickly moves on. I don't follow it. Can anybody clarify how WikiTribune relates to the author's complaints of Wikipedia?
- hoofish 9y ago
  Sure, WikiTribune uses a soft wiki model in a way that insures reliable reporting. This requires a responsible paid staff while still keeping the collaboration of the outside community in tact.
powera 9y ago
I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to accept "WikipediaSucks.com" as a source either.
- CDRdude 9y ago
  I wouldn't expect them to ban it from talk pages though.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    I would if the posts are destructive, disruptive or spamy. At first I would tend to ban the authors, but that would create precedent and effectively ban the posts not before long.
    - hoofish 9y ago
      damn you scarey
      - posterboy 9y ago
        that's only what they do here on HN
- jonas123 9y ago
  It's a great website though
babuskov 9y ago
> The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later. Mirror anyone?
H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
The site was having trouble loading for me. Here is an archive: http://archive.is/mOynr http://archive.is/mOynr I think blocking wikipediawehaveaproblem.com as a source is ok, but banning it from Jimmy's talk page is an entirely different kettle of fish.
- hoofish 9y ago
  it is not blocked as a source, it is blocked site wide from sharing on talk pages of any editor.
posterboy 9y ago
While Wikipedia is certainly not any more objective as a collective than any individual alone. It surely is tough to deal with confrontation and rejection emotional support. It's frustrating to eb the one who is wrong or being wronged. But it is most of all frustrating to be absolutely ignorant and Wikipedia is a great resource at providing educative insights, even if the editing process is severely laborious and the needed quality not always obvious or easily provided.
- hoofish 9y ago
  The issue is agenda based editing. While it is natural that people will disagree on context, that is not the problem, the problem is when you have agenda based editors who guard articles and suppress other viewpoints from any editing at all. That is what is happening on Wikipedia
FrozenVoid 9y ago
Wikipedia is fine if you look up something less controversial like proton decay, but as soon as article has multiple points of view, there is a fight to establish the 'dominant narrative'. Articles that have any arbitration measures applied or in semi-protection shouldn't be trusted: if there are huge talk page archives its also a sign the topic has multiple points of view which Wikipedia can't express. Neutral point of view(Wiki policy) with controversial topics often leads to one-sided articles where the side which 'won the article' controls completely the content, which is massaged to fit the NPOV policy without adding anything from opponents.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  This is a problem for sure, but consider the alternative. We could include all viewpoints. This means we put "the universe originated with a big bang and humans evolved from apes" next to "an invisible being created the world and humans 8000 years ago", "AIDS is caused by HIV" next to "AIDS is caused by vaccines and can be cured by ear candling", "the Holocaust killed 10 million plus people" next to "the Holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy to gain sympathy so they can take over the banking system". It's true that for some topics, including only the dominant view glosses over substantial evidence, but we can't ignore the fact that dominant viewpoints are often dominant because the non-dominant viewpoints have no basis in reality.
  - FrozenVoid 9y ago
    These contrasting views are documented in Wikipedia as conspiracy theories(holocaust denial, HIV denial) and creationism, wikipedia is fine with it. What i talk about are single articles where there is no other view elsewhere: the only expression of that topic belongs in a single article. It doesn't require to seek political articles to find obvious bias. Lets take for example 0.999... ; its contained in single article, there is only a brief mention of opposing view in skepticism section, but if you look at the talk pages you'll see its more controversial than it sounds and the opposing view is silenced.
    - kerkeslager 9y ago

33 points by hoofish 9y ago

edoceo 9y ago

Perspective seems clear and we'll reasoned to me. Until Wales is compared to Trump.

hoofish 9y ago
good point

zenkat 9y ago

Reading between the lines, this appears to be someone who has tried to alter Wikipedia to support fringe scientists & alt-medicine gurus like Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra. So I all a bit skeptical of his motives. Does anyone know the other side of the story?

mangecoeur 9y ago
I saw that too, mixed in with likely legit criticism of the possibility of editors abusing their power in the community and possibly too much orthodoxy squashing less popular views, is the fact that they want there to be more prominence for ideas that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny - and worse, can create confusion among lay people about what constitutes a valid scientific theory.
- hoofish 9y ago
  where specifically do you see that? It is detailed and mentioned both on Wikipedia itself and the website that the focus was on non controversial biographical information and had nothing to do with the ideas or the theories.
zenkat 9y ago
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  This is addressed here: http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/11/how-rational-wiki-abuses-its-google-page-rank-for-personal-attacks-slander-and-harassment/ http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/11/how-rational-wiki...
  - cholantesh 9y ago
    Viharo only quotes the RW article's preamble. The body of the article is more than ample in providing detail and citations to back itself up.
    - hoofish 9y ago
      are you actually defending the RW article? It's obvious hatch job. The rationalwiki article references itself when it says "Viharo has a persecution complex.." and states that the entire site is a conspiracy theory and no evidence has been found for harassment"...with no reference what so ever.
hoofish 9y ago
Where do you see any evidence of the author trying to alter Wikipedia to promote fringe science? You list RationalWiki as the "other side of the story", yet did you note that article was written by the same editors he encountered on Wikipedia? If you spend more time on the site, you will see that the case study involved intentional patience and only focused on non controversial biographical information. You appear to suggest that the context of the biographies the author was editing on means he was promoting or editing false or misleading information, and therefore perhaps deserved the treatment.
- zenkat 9y ago
  I asked for the other side of the story. RationalWiki appears to fit that bill. I made no judgments on the merits of either side of the squabble. I trust the readers of HN are capable of forming their own judgements based on available evidence.
  - hoofish 9y ago
    you specifically said "who has tried to alter Wikipedia to support fringe scientists & alt-medicine gurus" That narrative is from RationalWiki, and is misinformation. This is very clearly detailed on the website.
    - cholantesh 9y ago
      It isn't, though. I suspect you have only read Viharo's defense, which, tellingly, doesn't link to his RW article. It simply quotes from the preamble. The rest of the article expands significantly on it and cites his own words from Wikipedia talk pages.
      - hoofish 9y ago
        again, you're misinformed. it links DIRECTLY to the RW article, and that article is mentioned in many pages on WWHP. It links to comments made on talk pages out of context, read the actual links to WP pages and you will see.
krelnik42 9y ago
I wrote a blog post about the guy behind this website. He claims to be some sort of expert who tried to "study" editor interactions on Wikipedia. He's actually a social media & SEO marketing guy in California who likes to troll skeptics and science people online in his spare time. I analyzed the editing history of the articles involved in this blog post, and show that he is not in any way serious in his interactions on Wikipedia. https://skeptools.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/nothere-wikipedia-craig-weiler-rome-viharo-tumbleman-rupert-sheldrake/ https://skeptools.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/nothere-wikipedia...

luhn 9y ago

> Jimbo Wales, in touting the value of overcoming fake news with his new WikiTribune, is without realizing it admitting to the utter corruption of the Wikipedia model. The author makes this assertion and then quickly moves on. I don't follow it. Can anybody clarify how WikiTribune relates to the author's complaints of Wikipedia?

hoofish 9y ago
Sure, WikiTribune uses a soft wiki model in a way that insures reliable reporting. This requires a responsible paid staff while still keeping the collaboration of the outside community in tact.

powera 9y ago

I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to accept "WikipediaSucks.com" as a source either.

CDRdude 9y ago
I wouldn't expect them to ban it from talk pages though.
- posterboy 9y ago
  I would if the posts are destructive, disruptive or spamy. At first I would tend to ban the authors, but that would create precedent and effectively ban the posts not before long.
  - hoofish 9y ago
    damn you scarey
    - posterboy 9y ago
      that's only what they do here on HN
jonas123 9y ago
It's a great website though

babuskov 9y ago

> The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later. Mirror anyone?

H4CK3RM4N 9y ago

The site was having trouble loading for me. Here is an archive: http://archive.is/mOynr http://archive.is/mOynr I think blocking wikipediawehaveaproblem.com as a source is ok, but banning it from Jimmy's talk page is an entirely different kettle of fish.

hoofish 9y ago
it is not blocked as a source, it is blocked site wide from sharing on talk pages of any editor.

posterboy 9y ago

While Wikipedia is certainly not any more objective as a collective than any individual alone. It surely is tough to deal with confrontation and rejection emotional support. It's frustrating to eb the one who is wrong or being wronged. But it is most of all frustrating to be absolutely ignorant and Wikipedia is a great resource at providing educative insights, even if the editing process is severely laborious and the needed quality not always obvious or easily provided.

hoofish 9y ago
The issue is agenda based editing. While it is natural that people will disagree on context, that is not the problem, the problem is when you have agenda based editors who guard articles and suppress other viewpoints from any editing at all. That is what is happening on Wikipedia

FrozenVoid 9y ago

Wikipedia is fine if you look up something less controversial like proton decay, but as soon as article has multiple points of view, there is a fight to establish the 'dominant narrative'. Articles that have any arbitration measures applied or in semi-protection shouldn't be trusted: if there are huge talk page archives its also a sign the topic has multiple points of view which Wikipedia can't express. Neutral point of view(Wiki policy) with controversial topics often leads to one-sided articles where the side which 'won the article' controls completely the content, which is massaged to fit the NPOV policy without adding anything from opponents.

kerkeslager 9y ago
This is a problem for sure, but consider the alternative. We could include all viewpoints. This means we put "the universe originated with a big bang and humans evolved from apes" next to "an invisible being created the world and humans 8000 years ago", "AIDS is caused by HIV" next to "AIDS is caused by vaccines and can be cured by ear candling", "the Holocaust killed 10 million plus people" next to "the Holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy to gain sympathy so they can take over the banking system". It's true that for some topics, including only the dominant view glosses over substantial evidence, but we can't ignore the fact that dominant viewpoints are often dominant because the non-dominant viewpoints have no basis in reality.
- FrozenVoid 9y ago
  These contrasting views are documented in Wikipedia as conspiracy theories(holocaust denial, HIV denial) and creationism, wikipedia is fine with it. What i talk about are single articles where there is no other view elsewhere: the only expression of that topic belongs in a single article. It doesn't require to seek political articles to find obvious bias. Lets take for example 0.999... ; its contained in single article, there is only a brief mention of opposing view in skepticism section, but if you look at the talk pages you'll see its more controversial than it sounds and the opposing view is silenced.
  - kerkeslager 9y ago