3 ms·

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 lo

by 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.

nsajko 7y ago
But what alternative to Wikipedia do you propose? Also see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20371610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20371610
- kkoncevicius 7y ago
  > But what alternative to Wikipedia do you propose? What I do personally for subject that feel a bit controversial is: 1) read the Wiki article 2) read the Talk page 3) look for edits that were made earlier (special before the 2016 USA election) 4) look for primary sources when feasible. As another commenter mentioned here - editing articles in Wikipedia is a waste of time now, because there are interest groups that control a lot of "touchy" subjects. As an example (and I am adding it because I know the subject matter, having read 5 books by the author) compare the leading abstract of "Julius Evola" before 2016, and after: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&oldid=673273242 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&oldi... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola What changed? Evola was one of the authors that Steve Bannon mentioned in one of his interviews. So editors tried to turn Evola into a misogynist + racist + fascist, just to smear the Bannon guy.

by KKPMW 7y ago

nsajko 7y ago

But what alternative to Wikipedia do you propose? Also see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20371610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20371610

kkoncevicius 7y ago
> But what alternative to Wikipedia do you propose? What I do personally for subject that feel a bit controversial is: 1) read the Wiki article 2) read the Talk page 3) look for edits that were made earlier (special before the 2016 USA election) 4) look for primary sources when feasible. As another commenter mentioned here - editing articles in Wikipedia is a waste of time now, because there are interest groups that control a lot of "touchy" subjects. As an example (and I am adding it because I know the subject matter, having read 5 books by the author) compare the leading abstract of "Julius Evola" before 2016, and after: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&oldid=673273242 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&oldi... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola What changed? Evola was one of the authors that Steve Bannon mentioned in one of his interviews. So editors tried to turn Evola into a misogynist + racist + fascist, just to smear the Bannon guy.