3 ms·

>The editors of an encyclopedia Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is a point here, it's a crowdsourced publication that purports to be a neutral source, despite

>The editors of an encyclopedia Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is a point here, it's a crowdsourced publication that purports to be a neutral source, despite well documented conflicts among the editors.

viraptor 7y ago
Crowdsourced is the only difference here. Encyclopedia editors can also be biased. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/...
sam0x17 7y ago
I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things. Conflict is a sign of trustworthiness here. Even a cursory glance at how wikipedia is actually structured vs how early 2000s news media and schools portrayed it will lead you to the conclusion that it's a significantly better primary source than any other encyclopedia currently available. The sort of stuff in wikipedia that traditionally might be slightly biased (current events, very new political stuff) doesn't even appear in other encyclopedias until a decade later, so that has to be worth something as well. The number of eyes actively vetting and checking and re-checking every change on a moderately trafficked wikipedia page probably dwarfs the total number of editorial staff for even the largest of encyclopedias. The average accuracy is just going to be higher in a situation like that, even with people occasionally defacing pages.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  >I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things. You have got to be kidding me, how can you say that with a straight face? https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-...
  - sam0x17 7y ago
    The Vox article agrees with me? Better to have dissension and discourse rather than a bunch of editors from the same camp, whatever camp that may be.

viraptor 7y ago

Crowdsourced is the only difference here. Encyclopedia editors can also be biased. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/...

sam0x17 7y ago

I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things. Conflict is a sign of trustworthiness here. Even a cursory glance at how wikipedia is actually structured vs how early 2000s news media and schools portrayed it will lead you to the conclusion that it's a significantly better primary source than any other encyclopedia currently available. The sort of stuff in wikipedia that traditionally might be slightly biased (current events, very new political stuff) doesn't even appear in other encyclopedias until a decade later, so that has to be worth something as well. The number of eyes actively vetting and checking and re-checking every change on a moderately trafficked wikipedia page probably dwarfs the total number of editorial staff for even the largest of encyclopedias. The average accuracy is just going to be higher in a situation like that, even with people occasionally defacing pages.

creaghpatr 7y ago
>I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things. You have got to be kidding me, how can you say that with a straight face? https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-...
- sam0x17 7y ago
  The Vox article agrees with me? Better to have dissension and discourse rather than a bunch of editors from the same camp, whatever camp that may be.