3 ms·
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
by 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 agoBut 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 agoTruly we need a low-pass filter to handle current events.
- gchamonlive 6y agoThis 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 agoWe 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.