5 ms·

> state of wikipedia moderations I'm glad others are keeping an eye on this issue. It is incredibly ironic to me that anyone in a leadership role at Wikipedia

> state of wikipedia moderations I'm glad others are keeping an eye on this issue. It is incredibly ironic to me that anyone in a leadership role at Wikipedia would criticize Zuckerberg or Dorsey. It's not even just political content, it's getting to the point where history is being actively re-written and re-interpreted to match a radical narrative. In some sort of temporal example of humour, I've gone back to recommending people use Britannica as a starting point and for surface level reading.

gerikson 7y ago
> It is incredibly ironic to me that anyone in a leadership role at Wikipedia would criticize Zuckerberg or Dorsey. According to (ironically) Wikipedia[1], Sanger left the project in 2006^W the early 2000s: > Frustrated by sustained content battles and feeling he had a lack of support from Wales, Sanger eventually left the project. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger
- iamsb 7y ago
  Thanks. My bad.
KKPMW 7y ago
It's not even just political content or history. Take for example economics: There is an article about economics, obviously. And in its "criticism" section there is a long paragraph about criticism of economics from a feminist point of view. However wikipedia also has an article about feminist economics. Which is almost equal in length to the article about economics in general. And if you go to the feminist economics page - there is no criticism section. But you can open the talk page, and there is a discussion, where editors argue that criticism hurts the neutrality of the article and should not be added there. It just doesn't seem impartial to me.
- nsajko 7y ago
  You say that the "feminist economics" article does not seem impartial to you, but have you tried improving it? You could add that Criticism section.
  - KKPMW 7y ago
    My point was more about a big part of Wikipedia being ideologically biased. This Feminist Economics page was just an example. A lot of articles in Wikipedia are inside the battle ground for politics. I like to talk about it and point it out. But would rather stay a safe distance away.
    - nsajko 7y ago
      Yeah, but people wanting to "stay a safe distance away" is exactly what makes articles vulnerable. Wiki-style projects rely on many different interested parties contributing for accuracy and "neutral" point of view.
      - KKPMW 7y ago
        I would be quite a bit sceptical of "neutral point of view" emerging from two ideologies fighting against each other and the stronger one winning... To me it looks like the deeper problem is that there is little gain for a truly well-intentioned and impartial editor to keep editing articles for free, seeing that all around them neutrality is being suppressed for political party lines and ideologies. I agree with you that wiki-style projects depend on neutral volunteers to succeed. But you and me are not wiki-style projects. Our knowledge can be gathered from several differently biased sources and then combined, in hopes to get closer to "neutral". Also it might just be the case that it was too early to praise Wikipedia as success. When it started people had precisely these doubts in mind - how could a "democratic" platform aim at truth. Maybe critics were right, just the down-spiral effect was delayed. And at first it was delayed because there was a technical barrier at being an editor. Then various groups began to train people in editing Wikipedia, and here we are.
        7y ago
nsajko 7y ago
> in a leadership role at Wikipedia Nitpick: Sanger is not part of Wikipedia or the WMF as far as I know. > t's not even just political content, it's getting to the point where history is being actively re-written and re-interpreted to match a radical narrative. Mind giving some examples? > In some sort of temporal example of humour, I've gone back to recommending people use Britannica as a starting point and for surface level reading. In what way could Britannica possibly be better than Wikipedia. It is usually based on a single viewpoint, instead of Wikipedia's thousands.
- reallydude 7y ago
  > n what way could Britannica possibly be better than Wikipedia. > Mind giving some examples? Google can help you with these questions, to your own satisfaction.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    You mean "Google can help you on a reality tunnel choose your own adventure"?
    - reallydude 7y ago
      I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but I assume it has something to do with arguing about choosing the alternate source of fact on top of the discussion about criticism of wikipedia, which is used as a source of fact. This is not a winnable debate, but differing views exist. This is an incomplete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_o... https://www.quora.com/Am-I-the-only-frustrated-former-Wikipedia-editor-The-English-Wikipedia-is-not-as-bad-as-the-German-one-though https://www.quora.com/Am-I-the-only-frustrated-former-Wikipe... etc. The dubious nature of wikipedia's editing is recorded within books and articles from over the last decade that are casually discoverable from google. AFAIK, anyone who implies they aren't aware of the biases of editors, are either willfully ignorant (since this is covered under multiple topics within wikipedia itself) or trolling.
ysavir 7y ago
> it's getting to the point where history is being actively re-written and re-interpreted to match a radical narrative A human tradition dating back to the origin of storytelling. But at least now it comes packaged with a version history.

gerikson 7y ago

> It is incredibly ironic to me that anyone in a leadership role at Wikipedia would criticize Zuckerberg or Dorsey. According to (ironically) Wikipedia[1], Sanger left the project in 2006^W the early 2000s: > Frustrated by sustained content battles and feeling he had a lack of support from Wales, Sanger eventually left the project. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger

iamsb 7y ago
Thanks. My bad.

KKPMW 7y ago

It's not even just political content or history. Take for example economics: There is an article about economics, obviously. And in its "criticism" section there is a long paragraph about criticism of economics from a feminist point of view. However wikipedia also has an article about feminist economics. Which is almost equal in length to the article about economics in general. And if you go to the feminist economics page - there is no criticism section. But you can open the talk page, and there is a discussion, where editors argue that criticism hurts the neutrality of the article and should not be added there. It just doesn't seem impartial to me.

nsajko 7y ago
You say that the "feminist economics" article does not seem impartial to you, but have you tried improving it? You could add that Criticism section.
- KKPMW 7y ago
  My point was more about a big part of Wikipedia being ideologically biased. This Feminist Economics page was just an example. A lot of articles in Wikipedia are inside the battle ground for politics. I like to talk about it and point it out. But would rather stay a safe distance away.
  - nsajko 7y ago
    Yeah, but people wanting to "stay a safe distance away" is exactly what makes articles vulnerable. Wiki-style projects rely on many different interested parties contributing for accuracy and "neutral" point of view.
    - KKPMW 7y ago
      I would be quite a bit sceptical of "neutral point of view" emerging from two ideologies fighting against each other and the stronger one winning... To me it looks like the deeper problem is that there is little gain for a truly well-intentioned and impartial editor to keep editing articles for free, seeing that all around them neutrality is being suppressed for political party lines and ideologies. I agree with you that wiki-style projects depend on neutral volunteers to succeed. But you and me are not wiki-style projects. Our knowledge can be gathered from several differently biased sources and then combined, in hopes to get closer to "neutral". Also it might just be the case that it was too early to praise Wikipedia as success. When it started people had precisely these doubts in mind - how could a "democratic" platform aim at truth. Maybe critics were right, just the down-spiral effect was delayed. And at first it was delayed because there was a technical barrier at being an editor. Then various groups began to train people in editing Wikipedia, and here we are.
      - 7y ago

nsajko 7y ago

> in a leadership role at Wikipedia Nitpick: Sanger is not part of Wikipedia or the WMF as far as I know. > t's not even just political content, it's getting to the point where history is being actively re-written and re-interpreted to match a radical narrative. Mind giving some examples? > In some sort of temporal example of humour, I've gone back to recommending people use Britannica as a starting point and for surface level reading. In what way could Britannica possibly be better than Wikipedia. It is usually based on a single viewpoint, instead of Wikipedia's thousands.

reallydude 7y ago
> n what way could Britannica possibly be better than Wikipedia. > Mind giving some examples? Google can help you with these questions, to your own satisfaction.
- pixl97 7y ago
  You mean "Google can help you on a reality tunnel choose your own adventure"?
  - reallydude 7y ago
    I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but I assume it has something to do with arguing about choosing the alternate source of fact on top of the discussion about criticism of wikipedia, which is used as a source of fact. This is not a winnable debate, but differing views exist. This is an incomplete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_o... https://www.quora.com/Am-I-the-only-frustrated-former-Wikipedia-editor-The-English-Wikipedia-is-not-as-bad-as-the-German-one-though https://www.quora.com/Am-I-the-only-frustrated-former-Wikipe... etc. The dubious nature of wikipedia's editing is recorded within books and articles from over the last decade that are casually discoverable from google. AFAIK, anyone who implies they aren't aware of the biases of editors, are either willfully ignorant (since this is covered under multiple topics within wikipedia itself) or trolling.

ysavir 7y ago

> it's getting to the point where history is being actively re-written and re-interpreted to match a radical narrative A human tradition dating back to the origin of storytelling. But at least now it comes packaged with a version history.