4 ms·

Every now and then I go through some of wikipedias sources on certain social topics because I don't trust them at all. The amount of BS I've found in papers, ev

Every now and then I go through some of wikipedias sources on certain social topics because I don't trust them at all. The amount of BS I've found in papers, even though I don't eve have any research background at all is impressive. My favourite was probably this one paper where the author essentially made a reddit-post asking a community about themselves, then cherry-picked (the post is still up, with timestamps and all) a few comments and came to a conclusion that didn't really fit those hand-picked comments. In conclusion: Wikipedia is a dumpster fire and shouldn't be used for anything other than hard facts like dates and for entertainment.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Did you edit the Wikipedia page or challenge the interpretation in the talk page?
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  I already spend a lot of time trying to "fix the internet" and just don't have the stamina to also start fixing wikipedia now. I'm also being turned away by the constant stories of edit-wars that tend to happen about certain controversial topics.
- roel_v 6y ago
  Wikipedia itself has descended into the same pathologies you see in 'science' today: a bunch of gatekeepers who, by account of having been there the longest, have set up a moat of rules and 'culture' and such, to the point where newcomers are shut down or drowned out. I'm not saying it's impossible to get in; but only those that sufficiently mould themselves to the existing people and structures will last long enough to become fully accepted. And so the system sustains itself.
  - aspaceman 6y ago
    What are you even talking about? I genuinely have no idea. You mind tangibly identifying how Wikipedia has descended into chaos like you say?
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      They're not the only person to have made an honest effort to improve Wikipedia, only to be met with legalistic hostility and inertia.
- auganov 6y ago
  I wanted to edit an article about an obscure religious group that included some blatantly wrong statements about the espoused ideology. They had an academic tertiary source making these claims extrapolated from reaearch by the same author that made both plausible claims but also included similar inferences. Being a very obscure group there aren't many other academic sources discussing it. All literature that could disprove these claims comes from non-academics affiliated with the group which are a no-go. As per Wikipedia rules (which took hours to figure out), there's not much one can do short of getting some impartial or friendly academic to publish a more reasonable article.
pdpi 6y ago
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It’s a secondary source that aggregates knowledge from primary sources. For all the problems wikipedia does have, this isn’t one of them. It’s not their job to second guess published research.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  > Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia An encyclopaedia with rather low standards that many people sadly treat as an absolute source of truth. You're right that this isn't really a wikipedia problem though. It's a matter of education because an overwhelming majority of the population isn't competent enough to fact-check memes on facebook, let alone wikipedia, and if wikipedia doesn't do it either, then that responsibility is pushed all the way back to the scientists doing the actual research. This is an incredible lack of redundancy if you consider how important wikipedia has become in shaping public opinion. It's a system where the scientific publication process is the single point of failure and this article clearly shows that it does fail rather often. So what way is there to make this process safer? There needs to be at least another link in the chain that confirms information, preferably two or three.
  - yholio 6y ago
    > An encyclopaedia with rather low standards ... that somehow manages to have articles on proeminent subjects that are more in depth and factual than any competing encyclopedic endeavor, while, at the same time, far surpassing them by orders of magnitude on breadth for obscure and less academic topics. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia in the traditional sense, and can't be judged on the same standards. It is simply in a league of its own, it fails in different ways than traditional editor-controlled projects and is a fantastic repository of human knowledge and educational resource.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - missingrib 6y ago
    Is Wikipedia really as bad as you are claiming? Can you give some examples? It seems to me like a lot of the articles are accurate, and some of the check marked or featured articles are downright great.
d3nj4l 6y ago
Do you mind telling us which paper it was? I have a faint idea which one you mean, because I've read a bunch about reddit, and I would love to know if it's the same one or something else.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

Did you edit the Wikipedia page or challenge the interpretation in the talk page?

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
I already spend a lot of time trying to "fix the internet" and just don't have the stamina to also start fixing wikipedia now. I'm also being turned away by the constant stories of edit-wars that tend to happen about certain controversial topics.
roel_v 6y ago
Wikipedia itself has descended into the same pathologies you see in 'science' today: a bunch of gatekeepers who, by account of having been there the longest, have set up a moat of rules and 'culture' and such, to the point where newcomers are shut down or drowned out. I'm not saying it's impossible to get in; but only those that sufficiently mould themselves to the existing people and structures will last long enough to become fully accepted. And so the system sustains itself.
- aspaceman 6y ago
  What are you even talking about? I genuinely have no idea. You mind tangibly identifying how Wikipedia has descended into chaos like you say?
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    They're not the only person to have made an honest effort to improve Wikipedia, only to be met with legalistic hostility and inertia.
auganov 6y ago
I wanted to edit an article about an obscure religious group that included some blatantly wrong statements about the espoused ideology. They had an academic tertiary source making these claims extrapolated from reaearch by the same author that made both plausible claims but also included similar inferences. Being a very obscure group there aren't many other academic sources discussing it. All literature that could disprove these claims comes from non-academics affiliated with the group which are a no-go. As per Wikipedia rules (which took hours to figure out), there's not much one can do short of getting some impartial or friendly academic to publish a more reasonable article.

pdpi 6y ago

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It’s a secondary source that aggregates knowledge from primary sources. For all the problems wikipedia does have, this isn’t one of them. It’s not their job to second guess published research.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia An encyclopaedia with rather low standards that many people sadly treat as an absolute source of truth. You're right that this isn't really a wikipedia problem though. It's a matter of education because an overwhelming majority of the population isn't competent enough to fact-check memes on facebook, let alone wikipedia, and if wikipedia doesn't do it either, then that responsibility is pushed all the way back to the scientists doing the actual research. This is an incredible lack of redundancy if you consider how important wikipedia has become in shaping public opinion. It's a system where the scientific publication process is the single point of failure and this article clearly shows that it does fail rather often. So what way is there to make this process safer? There needs to be at least another link in the chain that confirms information, preferably two or three.
- yholio 6y ago
  > An encyclopaedia with rather low standards ... that somehow manages to have articles on proeminent subjects that are more in depth and factual than any competing encyclopedic endeavor, while, at the same time, far surpassing them by orders of magnitude on breadth for obscure and less academic topics. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia in the traditional sense, and can't be judged on the same standards. It is simply in a league of its own, it fails in different ways than traditional editor-controlled projects and is a fantastic repository of human knowledge and educational resource.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- missingrib 6y ago
  Is Wikipedia really as bad as you are claiming? Can you give some examples? It seems to me like a lot of the articles are accurate, and some of the check marked or featured articles are downright great.

d3nj4l 6y ago

Do you mind telling us which paper it was? I have a faint idea which one you mean, because I've read a bunch about reddit, and I would love to know if it's the same one or something else.