3 ms·

> The early strategy to just flag an article as controversial was the best way in my opinion. Because it informs the reader. It informs the reader that someone

by msla 7y ago

> The early strategy to just flag an article as controversial was the best way in my opinion. Because it informs the reader. It informs the reader that someone thinks the information is controversial. Well, whoopty-shit. Some people think evolution is a myth. Some people think the existence of trans people is a myth. Some people think the existence of disease-causing bacteria is a myth. Those topics are all, therefore, controversial, in that someone would flag the article for being such simply because it presented the reality-based view on those subjects as being real. If there's one thing the history of all humanity teaches us, it's that there are people willing to screech idiocy at reality until they fall down dead; they're wrong, they can be shown to be wrong, but they'll never admit they're wrong so trying to compromise with them is futile. That's why Wikipedia's NPOV policy is biased in favor of the scientific consensus, and why tags based on bullshit and nothing aren't allowed to stay on articles.

raxxorrax 7y ago
History tells me that authority creates facts far more often than scientific consensus and reality better conforms. We certainly had different teachers. These "idiots" as you call them are just not relevant. Their main advantage is not their ideas that have difficulties on their own. It is the animosity from people humping their legs that many other people avert their eyes in shame. The encyclopedia is dead and community resources are evidently the future. Fact checking has become a bit more important but I don't see the advantage in creating any authority that will fail at some point again. My criticism wasn't directed at articles about evolution, it was directed at political hot-button topics, which are notoriously bad on Wikipedia. To which degree that is the fault of users or moderators, I cannot say. Doesn't matter, because reading them isn't that much important anyway.

by msla 7y ago

raxxorrax 7y ago

History tells me that authority creates facts far more often than scientific consensus and reality better conforms. We certainly had different teachers. These "idiots" as you call them are just not relevant. Their main advantage is not their ideas that have difficulties on their own. It is the animosity from people humping their legs that many other people avert their eyes in shame. The encyclopedia is dead and community resources are evidently the future. Fact checking has become a bit more important but I don't see the advantage in creating any authority that will fail at some point again. My criticism wasn't directed at articles about evolution, it was directed at political hot-button topics, which are notoriously bad on Wikipedia. To which degree that is the fault of users or moderators, I cannot say. Doesn't matter, because reading them isn't that much important anyway.