3 ms·

I'm sure this has been discussed before on HN, but how has wikimedia avoided the fake news problem that plagues facebook, twitter and youtube.

mmanfrin 8y ago
People don't need reliable citations to post on FB.
- tyingq 8y ago
  There's also the visibility thing. You can put fake news on FB without making it visible to everyone.
not_kurt_godel 8y ago
Wikipedia definitely is not immune to the fake news effect. I can recall both reading about and directly seeing numerous instances of propaganda-esque edits. I'm guessing it probably just seems less prevalent because readership isn't concentrated on any one Wiki article the way that news/fake news is. I'm also under the impression that most wiki articles are closely watched by their authors as well as various wiki bots that alert to certain types of changes, so many/most malicious edits are probably noticed and reverted soon after they are made.
- valarauca1 8y ago
  Wikipedia has started to become _dare I say_ hostile to outside editors. The current glacial pace that it is updated at maintains pace with science, and journalism. But rarely the larger internet. While this is frustrating, when your trying to correct a citation or trivial spelling error in a long forgotten page. While on frequently trafficked pages this pace prevents a lot of malicious behavior.
  - yorwba 8y ago
    My Wikipedia account was created two months ago and has exactly two edits, one of which removed a spam link and another which fixed a transliteration error. There has been no hostile reaction. If you're just trying to correct a citation or trivial spelling error on a long forgotten page, editing doesn't seem to be particularly difficult.
    - soperj 8y ago
      You don't even need an account to do those changes.
  - not_kurt_godel 8y ago
    I think this goes to show Wikipedia generally has its priorities in order. Although I'm sure the process could be improved, friction against trivial corrections is a small price to pay for effectively defending the integrity of content against psychological warfare and vandalism, IMHO :)
gnulinux 8y ago
Wikipedia is very well cited. You can easily find counterexamples too, but pretty much all "long" articles that's been reviewed by editors are well cited. Facebook is never cited, I've literally never seen anyone citing source on facebook. Polar opposites.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
zarriak 8y ago
They have had the fake news problem for much longer and have multiple editors who have pet topics that they will maintain to their liking. "Fake news" only exists as a function of the design of those websites, all social media relies upon feeding the ad beast, which means more usage. Since it is fundamentally different in creation it does not have the same issues but has different issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Exposure_to_political_operatives_and_advocates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Exposur...
cirgue 8y ago
There is a lot more direct human intervention/judgement on Wikipedia, there are very clear standards for citation, evidence, and writing, and there are mechanisms for identifying and removing troll submissions while including explicit justification for why it was removed. Wikipedia was built from the ground up to oppose bad actors in ways that are constitutionally impossible for advertising-monetized platforms.
kolbe 8y ago
Most fake news isn't about spreading disinformation for the sake of corrupting a population. It's about generating clicks and finding suckers. Wikipedia isn't a great platform for that.
philwelch 8y ago
Oh, they have it. Unfortunately, some people get tunnel vision about fighting it, and then the propagandists use social media to circulate dishonest smears about them that spread widely out of context. There was an example right here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17109290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17109290 Edit: In fact, the propaganda operation is still ongoing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18051210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18051210

mmanfrin 8y ago

People don't need reliable citations to post on FB.

tyingq 8y ago
There's also the visibility thing. You can put fake news on FB without making it visible to everyone.

not_kurt_godel 8y ago

Wikipedia definitely is not immune to the fake news effect. I can recall both reading about and directly seeing numerous instances of propaganda-esque edits. I'm guessing it probably just seems less prevalent because readership isn't concentrated on any one Wiki article the way that news/fake news is. I'm also under the impression that most wiki articles are closely watched by their authors as well as various wiki bots that alert to certain types of changes, so many/most malicious edits are probably noticed and reverted soon after they are made.

valarauca1 8y ago
Wikipedia has started to become _dare I say_ hostile to outside editors. The current glacial pace that it is updated at maintains pace with science, and journalism. But rarely the larger internet. While this is frustrating, when your trying to correct a citation or trivial spelling error in a long forgotten page. While on frequently trafficked pages this pace prevents a lot of malicious behavior.
- yorwba 8y ago
  My Wikipedia account was created two months ago and has exactly two edits, one of which removed a spam link and another which fixed a transliteration error. There has been no hostile reaction. If you're just trying to correct a citation or trivial spelling error on a long forgotten page, editing doesn't seem to be particularly difficult.
  - soperj 8y ago
    You don't even need an account to do those changes.
- not_kurt_godel 8y ago
  I think this goes to show Wikipedia generally has its priorities in order. Although I'm sure the process could be improved, friction against trivial corrections is a small price to pay for effectively defending the integrity of content against psychological warfare and vandalism, IMHO :)

gnulinux 8y ago

Wikipedia is very well cited. You can easily find counterexamples too, but pretty much all "long" articles that's been reviewed by editors are well cited. Facebook is never cited, I've literally never seen anyone citing source on facebook. Polar opposites.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

zarriak 8y ago

They have had the fake news problem for much longer and have multiple editors who have pet topics that they will maintain to their liking. "Fake news" only exists as a function of the design of those websites, all social media relies upon feeding the ad beast, which means more usage. Since it is fundamentally different in creation it does not have the same issues but has different issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Exposure_to_political_operatives_and_advocates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Exposur...

cirgue 8y ago

There is a lot more direct human intervention/judgement on Wikipedia, there are very clear standards for citation, evidence, and writing, and there are mechanisms for identifying and removing troll submissions while including explicit justification for why it was removed. Wikipedia was built from the ground up to oppose bad actors in ways that are constitutionally impossible for advertising-monetized platforms.

kolbe 8y ago

Most fake news isn't about spreading disinformation for the sake of corrupting a population. It's about generating clicks and finding suckers. Wikipedia isn't a great platform for that.

philwelch 8y ago

Oh, they have it. Unfortunately, some people get tunnel vision about fighting it, and then the propagandists use social media to circulate dishonest smears about them that spread widely out of context. There was an example right here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17109290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17109290 Edit: In fact, the propaganda operation is still ongoing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18051210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18051210