4 ms·

I trusted Wikipedia until I've read articles for which I knew aobut the topic beforehand, too. Now.. not anymore. Pretty sure the crazies with lots of times on

by Kaiyou 7y ago

I trusted Wikipedia until I've read articles for which I knew aobut the topic beforehand, too. Now.. not anymore. Pretty sure the crazies with lots of times on their hand have won the editing wars.

dharmon 7y ago
There's a music channel on YouTube that does "Fact or Fiction" with musicians, where they fact-check the person's Wikipedia page with them. Sometimes they don't even get through the first sentence before the person has to stop them with corrections.
- ASlave2Gravity 7y ago
  And thank you for the link. edit: sorry, was being a bit rude.
- DHPersonal 7y ago
  Loudwire — Wikipeda: Fact or Fiction? https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvXmarOi5xICV0X4HfMH7S29EpvDpTQgd https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvXmarOi5xICV0X4HfMH7S29E...
  - dharmon 7y ago
    That's it. Sorry, didn't know the name of the channel.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  Which assumes that the musicians aren't lying, but yes, an occasional lying musician is probably still more accurate overall than Wikipedia's sourcing.
raxxorrax 7y ago
There is a lot of ego, especially on political debates, other articles have a much better quality. I don't know a feasible solution, but I often think the prominent voices are more of a problem than the average contributor. Maybe not tracking the amount of contributios would help. More anonymous access to help against echo chambers and networks?
- ASlave2Gravity 7y ago
  That's very interesting RE prominent voices. I guess getting into an ego-war with whoever likes to crit your ideas probably happens from time to time. But I do remember reading about a physicist who wasn't allowed to edit the Wiki on their theory! (sorry can't remember who / when)
  - anon73044 7y ago
    iirc it was someone from Periodic Videos or Numberphile
  - elect_engineer 7y ago
    Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer". :Would you really prefer it if Wikipedia allowed David Miscavige ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige ) to edit the Wikipedia page on Scientology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology )? :Wikipedia's policies on writing about yourself are spot on. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Best_practices_for_editors_with_close_associations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Best_practices_for_e...
Matticus_Rex 7y ago
Compared to what? I have the same issue with books in my focus areas that are widely revered, and even some peer-reviewed articles in good journals. I often disagree with things said on Wikipedia, but that's because I often disagree with the novice-accessible versions of things I know a lot about.

by Kaiyou 7y ago

I trusted Wikipedia until I've read articles for which I knew aobut the topic beforehand, too. Now.. not anymore. Pretty sure the crazies with lots of times on their hand have won the editing wars.

dharmon 7y ago

There's a music channel on YouTube that does "Fact or Fiction" with musicians, where they fact-check the person's Wikipedia page with them. Sometimes they don't even get through the first sentence before the person has to stop them with corrections.

ASlave2Gravity 7y ago
And thank you for the link. edit: sorry, was being a bit rude.
DHPersonal 7y ago
Loudwire — Wikipeda: Fact or Fiction? https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvXmarOi5xICV0X4HfMH7S29EpvDpTQgd https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvXmarOi5xICV0X4HfMH7S29E...
- dharmon 7y ago
  That's it. Sorry, didn't know the name of the channel.
pwinnski 7y ago
Which assumes that the musicians aren't lying, but yes, an occasional lying musician is probably still more accurate overall than Wikipedia's sourcing.

raxxorrax 7y ago

There is a lot of ego, especially on political debates, other articles have a much better quality. I don't know a feasible solution, but I often think the prominent voices are more of a problem than the average contributor. Maybe not tracking the amount of contributios would help. More anonymous access to help against echo chambers and networks?

ASlave2Gravity 7y ago
That's very interesting RE prominent voices. I guess getting into an ego-war with whoever likes to crit your ideas probably happens from time to time. But I do remember reading about a physicist who wasn't allowed to edit the Wiki on their theory! (sorry can't remember who / when)
- anon73044 7y ago
  iirc it was someone from Periodic Videos or Numberphile
- elect_engineer 7y ago
  Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer". :Would you really prefer it if Wikipedia allowed David Miscavige ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige ) to edit the Wikipedia page on Scientology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology )? :Wikipedia's policies on writing about yourself are spot on. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Best_practices_for_editors_with_close_associations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Best_practices_for_e...

Matticus_Rex 7y ago

Compared to what? I have the same issue with books in my focus areas that are widely revered, and even some peer-reviewed articles in good journals. I often disagree with things said on Wikipedia, but that's because I often disagree with the novice-accessible versions of things I know a lot about.