4 ms·

At 20, Wikipedia has become a refuge from Big Tech's misinformation

21 points by alexrustic 6y ago

AntiImperialist 6y ago
Wikipedia is still a huge source of mass disinformation because anyone can edit the pages and we know that companies and government agencies have been doing it forever, either directly or by using reputation management services. Just because they lock controversial articles once in a while doesn't change much.
pmdulaney 6y ago
At 20, Wikipedia is characterized by all sorts of things. But the half dozen or so stories about this anniversary on HN all mention this same meme. It's as though all of the news providers have been hypnotized! Come up with an original take, why don't you?
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  This is something that has recently made me pessimistic about the modern internet: not only has the organic blogging community of the early millennium dwindled, but what blogs exist now are often created as intentional copies of other blogs so they draw advertising revenue. You often see jobs posted on sites like Upwork where the client wants to hire someone to examine a preexisting blog and then re-write its content in order to escape copyright law. Recipe blogs are probably the most egregious example of this content theft (the blog owner who claims to be “born and bred in Louisiana and passionate about Cajun food” makes grammatical mistakes suggesting an Eastern European or Southeast Asia origin), but it is now spreading to all kinds of other hobbies and interests. If you are an original writer about a subject with no advertising on your site, it sucks to see you and your peers’ content buried in search results among the copycat websites. And now the same commercial pressures to simply copy someone else’s reportage are now commonly seen in news businesses that were hitherto thought to be respectable. Is it inevitable on the modern web that all original content will end up copied by others?
jwond 6y ago
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, thinks that Wikipedia is badly biased. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
- beisner 6y ago
  Unbiased, or even slightly biased, is impossible. The torrent of factual information is of such a magnitude that it is impossible to present “all the facts”. And presenting any subset of those facts, even a random sampling, induces a bias in the resulting narrative. Including the information suggested in the article would add a different kind of bias. Impartiality is impossible. Neutrality is a a lie. Strong bias is inevitable, no matter the intent.
  - octopoc 6y ago
    That's a red herring. The point of the article is that Wikipedia is badly biased in areas relating to leftist ideology. Wikipedia is a good source for technical information, but once you try to use it for historical, political, or religious research, you're going to end up uninformed.
    - xnyan 6y ago
      >badly biased in areas relating to leftist ideology Leftists could and do stay say that your opinions about their ideology are right-wing biased. What makes your statement more accurate than their position?
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  This article is really arguing that Wikipedia is not conservative enough for Larry Sanger's preference. He is arguing that minority opinions should be given more equal coverage, but only as far as this applies to conservative points of view.
- trianglem 6y ago
  Sounds like he wants Wikipedia to move away from a centrist/neutral position more towards the right.
logicalmonster 6y ago
Wikipedia is great in the sense that there’s no unseen algorithms dictating usage, but the editing is subject to human bias obviously. There’s edit wars, false removals of obscure topics, moderators with an ax to grind, and many more problems on Wikipedia when it comes to actual submissions.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  So very many moderators with an ax to grind. If there is a net bias, it is against new information that upsets professors emeriti. New and wrong do frequently go together, but that should not protect old and wrong.

21 points by alexrustic 6y ago

Wikipedia is still a huge source of mass disinformation because anyone can edit the pages and we know that companies and government agencies have been doing it forever, either directly or by using reputation management services. Just because they lock controversial articles once in a while doesn't change much.

pmdulaney 6y ago

At 20, Wikipedia is characterized by all sorts of things. But the half dozen or so stories about this anniversary on HN all mention this same meme. It's as though all of the news providers have been hypnotized! Come up with an original take, why don't you?

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
This is something that has recently made me pessimistic about the modern internet: not only has the organic blogging community of the early millennium dwindled, but what blogs exist now are often created as intentional copies of other blogs so they draw advertising revenue. You often see jobs posted on sites like Upwork where the client wants to hire someone to examine a preexisting blog and then re-write its content in order to escape copyright law. Recipe blogs are probably the most egregious example of this content theft (the blog owner who claims to be “born and bred in Louisiana and passionate about Cajun food” makes grammatical mistakes suggesting an Eastern European or Southeast Asia origin), but it is now spreading to all kinds of other hobbies and interests. If you are an original writer about a subject with no advertising on your site, it sucks to see you and your peers’ content buried in search results among the copycat websites. And now the same commercial pressures to simply copy someone else’s reportage are now commonly seen in news businesses that were hitherto thought to be respectable. Is it inevitable on the modern web that all original content will end up copied by others?

jwond 6y ago

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, thinks that Wikipedia is badly biased. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

beisner 6y ago
Unbiased, or even slightly biased, is impossible. The torrent of factual information is of such a magnitude that it is impossible to present “all the facts”. And presenting any subset of those facts, even a random sampling, induces a bias in the resulting narrative. Including the information suggested in the article would add a different kind of bias. Impartiality is impossible. Neutrality is a a lie. Strong bias is inevitable, no matter the intent.
- octopoc 6y ago
  That's a red herring. The point of the article is that Wikipedia is badly biased in areas relating to leftist ideology. Wikipedia is a good source for technical information, but once you try to use it for historical, political, or religious research, you're going to end up uninformed.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    >badly biased in areas relating to leftist ideology Leftists could and do stay say that your opinions about their ideology are right-wing biased. What makes your statement more accurate than their position?
throwaway2245 6y ago
This article is really arguing that Wikipedia is not conservative enough for Larry Sanger's preference. He is arguing that minority opinions should be given more equal coverage, but only as far as this applies to conservative points of view.
trianglem 6y ago
Sounds like he wants Wikipedia to move away from a centrist/neutral position more towards the right.

logicalmonster 6y ago

Wikipedia is great in the sense that there’s no unseen algorithms dictating usage, but the editing is subject to human bias obviously. There’s edit wars, false removals of obscure topics, moderators with an ax to grind, and many more problems on Wikipedia when it comes to actual submissions.

ncmncm 6y ago
So very many moderators with an ax to grind. If there is a net bias, it is against new information that upsets professors emeriti. New and wrong do frequently go together, but that should not protect old and wrong.