7 ms·

Its reputation is severely declining, especially on topics relating to current events, figures, or politics. It, however, remains excellent for technical knowl

Its reputation is severely declining, especially on topics relating to current events, figures, or politics. It, however, remains excellent for technical knowledge.

gchamonlive 6y ago
Current events are so divisive and many times no one has a clear picture of what's happening that I can't see how someone objectively assesses a current event news outlet as lacking reputation without prior incidents.
- canofbars 6y ago
  Someone on hacker news commented about how they started watching the news 2 weeks after it was broadcast and mentioned how a massive amount of the breaking news ended up being false when viewed later with the full set of information. It would probably be beneficial if wikipedia simply didn't allow brand new news that couldn't be solidly confirmed.
  - gchamonlive 6y ago
    But without characterizing what exactly "brand new" is, you could implement this prohibition without having the correct effect of maintaining veracity and consistency. And would you treat different events differently? Would you have to wait, for instance, for classified documents to be released so that you could say you have the bigger picture? I question if prohibition is really the right way to go. Wikipedia proved to be effective long term. Let them keep doing what is working. Maybe just warn the reader the subject or event is recent or currently developing and let the reader decide for himself whether to use that information or not.
  - 2sk21 6y ago
    Truly we need a low-pass filter to handle current events.
    - gchamonlive 6y ago
      This will invariably induce bias or render the debate too shallow to be productive, maybe even at a cost of manufacturing consent. Wikipedia already filters content, they only take more time. If you need some outlet with immediately curated information, I think you should look elsewhere, because this is not what wikipedia is for, the way I see it.
      - 2sk21 6y ago
        We are actually in agreement! I probably did not express myself properly - I don't want current events to be covered by Wikipedia. A delay is preferable.
Bud 6y ago
Hard disagree. If anything I'd say its value and reputation for current events and politics are higher than ever. Please substantiate your unfair attack. Also: there's a typo in your comment. First word should be "Its", and not "It's".
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  I don't think its hard to believe. Trust in media is at record lows. Since Wikipedia just repeats what the mainstream media says via its policy of using "reliable secondary sources", then wouldn't it follow that trust in Wikipedia would follow?
  - elliotec 6y ago
    > Since Wikipedia just repeats what the mainstream media says Citation needed.
    - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
      I mean, anyone who has ever edited wikipedia can tell you. If you restrict your sources to ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT and friends, your article is going to read like a mainstream media story. And as the media gets more and more hysterical that starts to reflect on the quality of their articles.
      - elliotec 6y ago
        > anyone who has ever edited wikipedia can tell you Citation needed. Come on. You're retorting request for data on an anecdote with "other people also have anecdotes"
        Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
        Okay okay. If you want to know how wikipedia feels about different news sources, they have a very nice article about it. It's even color coded. Green is considered reliable. Red is considered unreliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... So for instance, Wikipedia is seriously lacking in its cryptocurrency articles because you can't use coindesk or coin telegraph, even though they provide better coverage than CNBC and Bloomberg.
justinzollars 6y ago
100%. Wikipedia is an excellent recourse for anything non political, especially scientific and technical information.
- senkora 6y ago
  It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics. That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m free to help out...).
  - creato 6y ago
    I can barely believe I'm reading this comment! Wikipedia is my first and almost always only stop whenever I want to learn something related to math.
    - oooooooooooow 6y ago
      Yes I had the same thought, then I guessed parent might be referring to how wiki doesn't present topics in a way that's easily digestible for someone approaching new topics in math, which I can get behind. It is an encyclopedia after all.
    - e12e 6y ago
      Sometimes the "simple English" version is better than the "full" English version - perhaps especially for mathematics.
      - vmurthy 6y ago
        I came here to post that simple wikipedia exists :) . Just to prove your point, have a look at the simple page for "Prime number" [0] and the regular page for the same [1] If I were just starting out with mathematics, I'd be rather intimidated by the regular page. I find the simple version to be the right start for any topic and then move on to the regular one. [0] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number
kyle_martin1 6y ago
This. Wikipedia severely locks out content creators to provide balanced views on politics. It’s no secret the current content creators lean towards one side of the isle.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  What does balanced mean? It's supposed to be well-cited not balanced
  - jjcon 6y ago
    It has to be balanced and accurate. You can be 100% accurate and be incredibly misleading by omission or overemphasis. https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/guidelines-on-accuracy-and-balance https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/guidelines-on...
  - kortilla 6y ago
    It means the Wikipedia article on Thalidomide can’t leave out the section on all of the harm it caused, despite the rest being well-cited.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      But all the citations are going to mention that or it's just another chemical. The average HN-er seems be more right wing than in most comment sections, so I was curious whether balanced means "fits my politics" or the more subtle "I'm only asking questions about the election"-ing on individual articles e.g. I could see the length of the Trump-Russia article annoying a few people here who seem to believe it's completely made up
      - kortilla 6y ago
        > But all the citations are going to mention that or it's just another chemical. No they aren’t. All you need to do is cite all of the material that was used for its initial approval before they knew about the problems. Another example to help illustrate. The Boeing 737 MAX had a well-cited full article before the MCAS issues were known. Unbalanced moderation could just revert any future edits that tried to add in the issues. > The average HN-er seems be more right wing than in most comment sections Don’t do this shit. It makes for such boring reading. All you’re stating is that you have confirmation bias and don’t like seeing ideas you disagree with. There are thousands of comments all over about how HN is right-wing, left-wing etc with no evidence beyond anecdotes. If it were biased right-wing the top comments on the Parler bands would not be lauding the decisions to ban them. If it were biased right wing, there wouldn’t be so many articles about basic income, etc either.
Merman_Mike 6y ago
This is a current event that is extremely political: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_pro... It cites 462 sources and the parts I read are at least as objective as any news outlet. I know that Wikipedia editors lean left. I'd be interested to see examples of this bias in Wiki entries though.
- jjcon 6y ago
  One random example I ran across recently of note to HN crowd - the creator of Javscript and Brave, Founder of Mozilla Brendan Eich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich Under known for it says, “Known for JavaScript, opposition to same-sex marriage” Really? I’m as gay as they come but this just gives me scarlet letter vibes. I sincerely doubt people know this guy for his work opposing ssm (of which there wasn’t any, he was just opposed to it back in the day). People do know firefox, brave, mozilla etc though. In the talk page it is clear there are a couple editors with a vendetta against this guy or something. Maybe an example of personal bias more than a left/right thing but I still found it kinda weird.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    > Really? I’m as gay as they come but this just gives me scarlet letter vibes. I agree, I sure wouldn't want to be known for inventing JavaScript. And the name wasn't even his idea. How unfair!
  - gregcoombe 6y ago
    The Wikipedia page dedicates an entire section to explaining that comment, under "Appointment to CEO, controversy and resignation". He was forced out of the CEO position for this political view. It was a pretty significant news story, and I think they are right for including this as part of what he is known for (particularly outside the HN community).
  - elliotec 6y ago
    I mean, it's what he's known for. It was a very big deal when it was discovered that he opposed and donated against gay marriage. He resigned as CEO of Mozilla over it. Many people outside of internet communities like HN first learned his name when this all went down. Creator of JS wasn't as big a deal to most people at the time as CEO of a major non profit internet company opposing one of the biggest human rights issues of our time.
destxD 6y ago
Interestingly enough the talk page is quite good to learn about current events and see every view. Though it is obvious that some mods and admins have an agenda; to be honest I didn't even realize it till I saw the war over Kamala's wiki page, super shady stuff.
- creato 6y ago
  What are you talking about? I just skimmed the Kamala Harris talk page and it's all bickering about trivial edits as far as I saw.
  - destxD 6y ago
    This was just before she announced her candidacy, I saw some interesting posts on Reddit. I can't say for certain what exactly happened but it was just super fishy. Some further reading : https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/gni8t5/using_wikipedia_edits_to_predict_the_vp_pick/ https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/gni8t5/using_wi... https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/kamala-harris-wikipedia/ https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/kamala-harris-wikipedia/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/hk6eo3/kamala_harriss_wikipedia_page_is_being_edited/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/hk6eo3/kamala_ha... (check other discussions also) I hope that gives a good starting point. PS: I don't have a horse in this race, I just know my trust in wikipedia was shaken.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      The moderation team constantly admonished the person making the edits, eventually ruling they had a conflict of interest and were not allowed to edit posts about Harris and some other politicians. They acted slower than fast paced politics, but ultimately seemed to do the right things.
elliotec 6y ago
What sources do you have on the decline of it's reputation?
lazyjones 6y ago
Yep, it nicely demonstrates how much cooperating strangers can achieve in a few years... and how much of that is tarnished by petty political and ideological disputes these days, due to lack of ethical standards and education.
canofbars 6y ago
Wikipedia is not a place to catch up on the latest news or scandals as this stuff is usually hotly debated and often the truth isn't known for some time anyway. They usually do have pretty good summaries of the issues years after they have happened and all investigations / biases have finished. I use wikipedia several times daily and find the information to be super useful and seemingly accurate. I find the wikipedia information on chemicals and plants to be super useful.
einpoklum 6y ago
Agreed. I recently learned its CEO has a rather shady past, see e.g. here: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-loving-founder-and-wikimedia-foundations-regime-change-operative-ceo/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-... and I've always felt a strong pro-establishment bias on political matters. I can't say I'm an expert on Wikipedia in any way, but I wish the Wikimedia foundation as an organization would get some critical press coverage - at least as much as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple etc (which is not enough).

Its reputation is severely declining, especially on topics relating to current events, figures, or politics. It, however, remains excellent for technical knowledge.

gchamonlive 6y ago

Current events are so divisive and many times no one has a clear picture of what's happening that I can't see how someone objectively assesses a current event news outlet as lacking reputation without prior incidents.

canofbars 6y ago
Someone on hacker news commented about how they started watching the news 2 weeks after it was broadcast and mentioned how a massive amount of the breaking news ended up being false when viewed later with the full set of information. It would probably be beneficial if wikipedia simply didn't allow brand new news that couldn't be solidly confirmed.
- gchamonlive 6y ago
  But without characterizing what exactly "brand new" is, you could implement this prohibition without having the correct effect of maintaining veracity and consistency. And would you treat different events differently? Would you have to wait, for instance, for classified documents to be released so that you could say you have the bigger picture? I question if prohibition is really the right way to go. Wikipedia proved to be effective long term. Let them keep doing what is working. Maybe just warn the reader the subject or event is recent or currently developing and let the reader decide for himself whether to use that information or not.
- 2sk21 6y ago
  Truly we need a low-pass filter to handle current events.
  - gchamonlive 6y ago
    This will invariably induce bias or render the debate too shallow to be productive, maybe even at a cost of manufacturing consent. Wikipedia already filters content, they only take more time. If you need some outlet with immediately curated information, I think you should look elsewhere, because this is not what wikipedia is for, the way I see it.
    - 2sk21 6y ago
      We are actually in agreement! I probably did not express myself properly - I don't want current events to be covered by Wikipedia. A delay is preferable.

Bud 6y ago

Hard disagree. If anything I'd say its value and reputation for current events and politics are higher than ever. Please substantiate your unfair attack. Also: there's a typo in your comment. First word should be "Its", and not "It's".

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
I don't think its hard to believe. Trust in media is at record lows. Since Wikipedia just repeats what the mainstream media says via its policy of using "reliable secondary sources", then wouldn't it follow that trust in Wikipedia would follow?
- elliotec 6y ago
  > Since Wikipedia just repeats what the mainstream media says Citation needed.
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    I mean, anyone who has ever edited wikipedia can tell you. If you restrict your sources to ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT and friends, your article is going to read like a mainstream media story. And as the media gets more and more hysterical that starts to reflect on the quality of their articles.
    - elliotec 6y ago
      > anyone who has ever edited wikipedia can tell you Citation needed. Come on. You're retorting request for data on an anecdote with "other people also have anecdotes"
      - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
        Okay okay. If you want to know how wikipedia feels about different news sources, they have a very nice article about it. It's even color coded. Green is considered reliable. Red is considered unreliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... So for instance, Wikipedia is seriously lacking in its cryptocurrency articles because you can't use coindesk or coin telegraph, even though they provide better coverage than CNBC and Bloomberg.

justinzollars 6y ago

100%. Wikipedia is an excellent recourse for anything non political, especially scientific and technical information.

senkora 6y ago
It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics. That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m free to help out...).
- creato 6y ago
  I can barely believe I'm reading this comment! Wikipedia is my first and almost always only stop whenever I want to learn something related to math.
  - oooooooooooow 6y ago
    Yes I had the same thought, then I guessed parent might be referring to how wiki doesn't present topics in a way that's easily digestible for someone approaching new topics in math, which I can get behind. It is an encyclopedia after all.
  - e12e 6y ago
    Sometimes the "simple English" version is better than the "full" English version - perhaps especially for mathematics.
    - vmurthy 6y ago
      I came here to post that simple wikipedia exists :) . Just to prove your point, have a look at the simple page for "Prime number" [0] and the regular page for the same [1] If I were just starting out with mathematics, I'd be rather intimidated by the regular page. I find the simple version to be the right start for any topic and then move on to the regular one. [0] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number

kyle_martin1 6y ago

This. Wikipedia severely locks out content creators to provide balanced views on politics. It’s no secret the current content creators lean towards one side of the isle.

mhh__ 6y ago
What does balanced mean? It's supposed to be well-cited not balanced
- jjcon 6y ago
  It has to be balanced and accurate. You can be 100% accurate and be incredibly misleading by omission or overemphasis. https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/guidelines-on-accuracy-and-balance https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/guidelines-on...
- kortilla 6y ago
  It means the Wikipedia article on Thalidomide can’t leave out the section on all of the harm it caused, despite the rest being well-cited.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    But all the citations are going to mention that or it's just another chemical. The average HN-er seems be more right wing than in most comment sections, so I was curious whether balanced means "fits my politics" or the more subtle "I'm only asking questions about the election"-ing on individual articles e.g. I could see the length of the Trump-Russia article annoying a few people here who seem to believe it's completely made up
    - kortilla 6y ago
      > But all the citations are going to mention that or it's just another chemical. No they aren’t. All you need to do is cite all of the material that was used for its initial approval before they knew about the problems. Another example to help illustrate. The Boeing 737 MAX had a well-cited full article before the MCAS issues were known. Unbalanced moderation could just revert any future edits that tried to add in the issues. > The average HN-er seems be more right wing than in most comment sections Don’t do this shit. It makes for such boring reading. All you’re stating is that you have confirmation bias and don’t like seeing ideas you disagree with. There are thousands of comments all over about how HN is right-wing, left-wing etc with no evidence beyond anecdotes. If it were biased right-wing the top comments on the Parler bands would not be lauding the decisions to ban them. If it were biased right wing, there wouldn’t be so many articles about basic income, etc either.

Merman_Mike 6y ago

This is a current event that is extremely political: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_pro... It cites 462 sources and the parts I read are at least as objective as any news outlet. I know that Wikipedia editors lean left. I'd be interested to see examples of this bias in Wiki entries though.

jjcon 6y ago
One random example I ran across recently of note to HN crowd - the creator of Javscript and Brave, Founder of Mozilla Brendan Eich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich Under known for it says, “Known for JavaScript, opposition to same-sex marriage” Really? I’m as gay as they come but this just gives me scarlet letter vibes. I sincerely doubt people know this guy for his work opposing ssm (of which there wasn’t any, he was just opposed to it back in the day). People do know firefox, brave, mozilla etc though. In the talk page it is clear there are a couple editors with a vendetta against this guy or something. Maybe an example of personal bias more than a left/right thing but I still found it kinda weird.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > Really? I’m as gay as they come but this just gives me scarlet letter vibes. I agree, I sure wouldn't want to be known for inventing JavaScript. And the name wasn't even his idea. How unfair!
- gregcoombe 6y ago
  The Wikipedia page dedicates an entire section to explaining that comment, under "Appointment to CEO, controversy and resignation". He was forced out of the CEO position for this political view. It was a pretty significant news story, and I think they are right for including this as part of what he is known for (particularly outside the HN community).
- elliotec 6y ago
  I mean, it's what he's known for. It was a very big deal when it was discovered that he opposed and donated against gay marriage. He resigned as CEO of Mozilla over it. Many people outside of internet communities like HN first learned his name when this all went down. Creator of JS wasn't as big a deal to most people at the time as CEO of a major non profit internet company opposing one of the biggest human rights issues of our time.

destxD 6y ago

Interestingly enough the talk page is quite good to learn about current events and see every view. Though it is obvious that some mods and admins have an agenda; to be honest I didn't even realize it till I saw the war over Kamala's wiki page, super shady stuff.

creato 6y ago
What are you talking about? I just skimmed the Kamala Harris talk page and it's all bickering about trivial edits as far as I saw.
- destxD 6y ago
  This was just before she announced her candidacy, I saw some interesting posts on Reddit. I can't say for certain what exactly happened but it was just super fishy. Some further reading : https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/gni8t5/using_wikipedia_edits_to_predict_the_vp_pick/ https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/gni8t5/using_wi... https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/kamala-harris-wikipedia/ https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/kamala-harris-wikipedia/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/hk6eo3/kamala_harriss_wikipedia_page_is_being_edited/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/hk6eo3/kamala_ha... (check other discussions also) I hope that gives a good starting point. PS: I don't have a horse in this race, I just know my trust in wikipedia was shaken.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    The moderation team constantly admonished the person making the edits, eventually ruling they had a conflict of interest and were not allowed to edit posts about Harris and some other politicians. They acted slower than fast paced politics, but ultimately seemed to do the right things.

elliotec 6y ago

What sources do you have on the decline of it's reputation?

lazyjones 6y ago

Yep, it nicely demonstrates how much cooperating strangers can achieve in a few years... and how much of that is tarnished by petty political and ideological disputes these days, due to lack of ethical standards and education.

canofbars 6y ago

Wikipedia is not a place to catch up on the latest news or scandals as this stuff is usually hotly debated and often the truth isn't known for some time anyway. They usually do have pretty good summaries of the issues years after they have happened and all investigations / biases have finished. I use wikipedia several times daily and find the information to be super useful and seemingly accurate. I find the wikipedia information on chemicals and plants to be super useful.

einpoklum 6y ago

Agreed. I recently learned its CEO has a rather shady past, see e.g. here: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-loving-founder-and-wikimedia-foundations-regime-change-operative-ceo/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-... and I've always felt a strong pro-establishment bias on political matters. I can't say I'm an expert on Wikipedia in any way, but I wish the Wikimedia foundation as an organization would get some critical press coverage - at least as much as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple etc (which is not enough).