5 ms·

Report for America funded a community Wikipedia editor at a library

49 points by danso 7y ago

larnmar 7y ago
This kind of model seems like an excellent way for political groups to push their agenda while staying at arm’s length.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  Indeed. Report For America's stated mandate is to fund reporters covering "under-served news issues". It seems like the honest way to spend money on this is to start your own magazine/newspaper/TV-station and talk about the issues you are interested in. On the other hand, a large amount of the news is already repackaged corporate press releases and similar things, so there's no much further down things can go.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- 8bitsrule 7y ago
  Not so much when it comes to WPedia, IME. Although it depends on how many editorial eyes visit it (which may be proportional to its impact), a WP article is likely to source any expressed opionions, and smooth over biases (because of colliding reality-tunnels). ... Except when it comes to biographies of anyone well-placed and/or notorious. I've watched carefully-researched details about such individuals get scrubbed away. (There are outfits that specialize in this.)
  - QuiXotical1 7y ago
    Also when it comes to hyper partisan issues I’m honestly not confident that information can be smoothed out to arrive at something resembling the truth. If anything I would expect those topics to become an amalgamation of facts which are easily interpreted in any way. “Person says X” well obviously it means “A” but 2 sentences later says “Y” so obviously means “B” then in the context of the whole paragraph the meaning is clearly “C” but because of the climate around that time the implication could mean “D” or oppositely “E”. Basically anything political can be manipulated and twisted to suit whatever ideology a group favors while never misquoting or distorting “facts”. I’m not sure you can ever smooth out bias, and depending on the issue, if one group is more active than the other, it’s just an information and effort war for who can monopolize the page.. and then that’s nothing to say about those who review and decide what edits are more correct/valid. But eh, oh well.
Jaruzel 7y ago
Or, y'know, actually employ a qualified librarian to do the role. /smh Librarians (the real ones, not the trolley pushing assistants) despair at Wikipedia. There have been many reports[1] of Librarians who are subject matter experts correcting the Wikipedia pages of which they are an expert in, only to end up in a edit wars with seasoned Wikipedia authoritarians who revert the Librarians edits because they are wrong(!). As such a lot of Librarians won't give Wikipedia the time of day, which is a real shame as these people are the real authority on their chosen subjects. --- [1] No I don't have links; you'll have to ask my partner.
- Angostura 7y ago
  > There have been many reports [citation needed]
  - thebooktocome 7y ago
    Here's one (that links a second one): https://twitter.com/cfiesler/status/1201246456599859200?s=20 https://twitter.com/cfiesler/status/1201246456599859200?s=20
    - Angostura 7y ago
      Thank you - enlightening and disturbing.
    - belorn 7y ago
      I am not very surprised given the initial motivation. She gave herself a quest to do political activism by editing Wikipedia, something with Wikipedia project generally looks at with suspicion and hostility. I am not sure how well that translate to an librarian fixing errors and lifting decent covered topics with expert knowledge.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- flir 7y ago

49 points by danso 7y ago

larnmar 7y ago

This kind of model seems like an excellent way for political groups to push their agenda while staying at arm’s length.

joe_the_user 7y ago
Indeed. Report For America's stated mandate is to fund reporters covering "under-served news issues". It seems like the honest way to spend money on this is to start your own magazine/newspaper/TV-station and talk about the issues you are interested in. On the other hand, a large amount of the news is already repackaged corporate press releases and similar things, so there's no much further down things can go.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
8bitsrule 7y ago
Not so much when it comes to WPedia, IME. Although it depends on how many editorial eyes visit it (which may be proportional to its impact), a WP article is likely to source any expressed opionions, and smooth over biases (because of colliding reality-tunnels). ... Except when it comes to biographies of anyone well-placed and/or notorious. I've watched carefully-researched details about such individuals get scrubbed away. (There are outfits that specialize in this.)
- QuiXotical1 7y ago
  Also when it comes to hyper partisan issues I’m honestly not confident that information can be smoothed out to arrive at something resembling the truth. If anything I would expect those topics to become an amalgamation of facts which are easily interpreted in any way. “Person says X” well obviously it means “A” but 2 sentences later says “Y” so obviously means “B” then in the context of the whole paragraph the meaning is clearly “C” but because of the climate around that time the implication could mean “D” or oppositely “E”. Basically anything political can be manipulated and twisted to suit whatever ideology a group favors while never misquoting or distorting “facts”. I’m not sure you can ever smooth out bias, and depending on the issue, if one group is more active than the other, it’s just an information and effort war for who can monopolize the page.. and then that’s nothing to say about those who review and decide what edits are more correct/valid. But eh, oh well.

Jaruzel 7y ago

Or, y'know, actually employ a qualified librarian to do the role. /smh Librarians (the real ones, not the trolley pushing assistants) despair at Wikipedia. There have been many reports[1] of Librarians who are subject matter experts correcting the Wikipedia pages of which they are an expert in, only to end up in a edit wars with seasoned Wikipedia authoritarians who revert the Librarians edits because they are wrong(!). As such a lot of Librarians won't give Wikipedia the time of day, which is a real shame as these people are the real authority on their chosen subjects. --- [1] No I don't have links; you'll have to ask my partner.

Angostura 7y ago
> There have been many reports [citation needed]
- thebooktocome 7y ago
  Here's one (that links a second one): https://twitter.com/cfiesler/status/1201246456599859200?s=20 https://twitter.com/cfiesler/status/1201246456599859200?s=20
  - Angostura 7y ago
    Thank you - enlightening and disturbing.
  - belorn 7y ago
    I am not very surprised given the initial motivation. She gave herself a quest to do political activism by editing Wikipedia, something with Wikipedia project generally looks at with suspicion and hostility. I am not sure how well that translate to an librarian fixing errors and lifting decent covered topics with expert knowledge.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
flir 7y ago