5 ms·

Could you cite specific examples of wrong or actually harmful information? That would give more credence to your arguments. Maybe also link to your rejected c

Could you cite specific examples of wrong or actually harmful information? That would give more credence to your arguments. Maybe also link to your rejected contributions to show that you are not just disgruntled because your edits were reverted. I do agree that there are lots of inaccuracies in articles, but having Wikipedia with at least somewhat helpful information is infinitely better than having nothing at all.

throwaways885 6y ago
Political content is a landmine, articles are often locked because vandals are often indistinguishable from those with better information but still controversial.
- Macha 6y ago
  One example: Britishfinance/"Ireland as a tax haven"[1] Summary: A user, Britishfinance (believed to be Paddy Cosgrave, disgruntled founder of the web summit, a major EU tech event that moved from Ireland to Lisbon as the Irish government wouldn't give him what he wanted) spent about a year primarily editing articles related to Ireland to make a link of claims about the country being a tax haven the most prominent feature of them. Case in point, look at the overview for the article on Ireland after the user edited it [2]. It's since been rolled back somewhat by other wikipedia editors who felt that was a disproportionate amount of space given to that discussion. But Wikipedia isn't so well equipped to handle this kind of dispute. 1. Ireland certainly has benefited from its tax policies, including both competitive but undisputed to be the right of the country, like having a lower corporate headline tax rate than its neighbours, and 2. Ireland has been involved in tax loopholes, such as the now defunct double irish/dutch sandwich stuff 3. You can find sourced articles for all of this. So at what point does putting this information as the most prominent information in a wide variety of Ireland related articles cross from being just adding facts to encyclopedia articles to being politically motivated? When one side is an active wikipedia admin and the other side is a bunch of casual editors or users who don't edit, who gets the benefit of the doubt? 1: https://old.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/bgyfet/til_theres_a_wikipedia_editor_called/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/bgyfet/til_theres_... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Ireland&oldid=837235350 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Irela...
  - andrepd 6y ago
    All very well and true, but isn't this also a problem in closed encylopedias?? Surely even a paid editor has her biases, and at the very least would have to make a judgement call on whether or not to include that information in the opening paragraph and so on. Wikipedia actually has the advantage here as the discussion is completely open and you can see the all arguments and the process that led to a decision.
  - jerry1979 6y ago
    Should I believe that the Republic of Ireland's wikipedia entry had an issue with how it talked about taxes, but now wikipedia has corrected that issue?
- robin21 6y ago
  Yeh if you read the talk pages (which are hard to find and many people wouldn’t even know about) you will find so many people pushing an agenda rather than trying to adhere to some neutrality. Small subtle changes designed to push someone’s world view. I think it’s so rare these days to find people who can remain objective and leave their opinions at the door. Everyone seems fueled by rage, it’s like their political views are their purpose in life.
buran77 6y ago
> at least somewhat helpful information is infinitely better than having nothing at all Maybe, at least as long as we still have a good ratio between reliable and unreliable info (whatever that ratio may be). But as long as someone can piggy-back on this reputation, and most people simply take all that info for granted, the effect of a disingenuous Wiki article is far higher than your average FB "fake news". It's that implicit trust that makes a Trojan horse more dangerous. There is no action being taken to make this process of correcting information more open and transparent, and out of the hands of a few people. Especially since it's been shown in the past that this kind of power was sold for money in PR campaigns, or used for revenge edits.
- bitstan 6y ago
  > the effect of a disingenuous Wiki article is far higher than your average FB "fake news" Wikipedia doesn't profit by weaponizing misinformation. That's FB's business model. All those people who stormed the capital. You think they were FB users or Wiki users? The thought of them diligently reading encyclopedia entries and becoming radicalized has me cackling.
  - Swenrekcah 6y ago
    Well, they could have been reading conservapedia
will4274 6y ago
Sure. The article for Bill Ayers describes him as an "elementary education theorist." That's not what he's notable for.
- jjk166 6y ago
  And the article for John Wilkes Booth describes him as an "American stage actor" even though that's not what he's known for. If you keep reading the article, however, it's almost completely about what he is known for (a statement true for both cases). That's just standard wikipedia formatting.
  - stonogo 6y ago
    "Standard wikipedia formatting" being burying the lead is not a compelling defense. It's damn near misleading. I find "an American stage actor who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln" to be a ridiculous introduction; it should read "an American assassin who killed President Abraham Lincoln" -- the man's profession is completely irrelevant; he is notable for this one act. It isn't even consistently applied: Ted Kaczynski is listed as a domestic terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan is "a Palestinian Christian militant," but then Charles Guiteau is a "writer and lawyer."
    - jjk166 6y ago
      Ted Kaczynski hasn't been anything other than a domestic terrorist since 1969 when he dropped out of academia at the ripe old age of 27. Sirhan Sirhan didn't have a profession, as far as I can tell he was working at a health food store when he assasinated RFK, and has spent the past 53 years incarcerated for it. Charles Guiteau had a long career prior to assassinating Garfield, as did Booth before assassinating Lincoln. While both committed assassinations, there was no point in time where you could have hired either to assassinate someone for you, it wasn't either of their professions.
      - stonogo 6y ago
        My whole point here is that their professions are not noteworthy, relevant, or interesting, but Wikipedian bureaucracy causes them to be mentioned, and I think it's dumb.

throwaways885 6y ago

Political content is a landmine, articles are often locked because vandals are often indistinguishable from those with better information but still controversial.

Macha 6y ago
One example: Britishfinance/"Ireland as a tax haven"[1] Summary: A user, Britishfinance (believed to be Paddy Cosgrave, disgruntled founder of the web summit, a major EU tech event that moved from Ireland to Lisbon as the Irish government wouldn't give him what he wanted) spent about a year primarily editing articles related to Ireland to make a link of claims about the country being a tax haven the most prominent feature of them. Case in point, look at the overview for the article on Ireland after the user edited it [2]. It's since been rolled back somewhat by other wikipedia editors who felt that was a disproportionate amount of space given to that discussion. But Wikipedia isn't so well equipped to handle this kind of dispute. 1. Ireland certainly has benefited from its tax policies, including both competitive but undisputed to be the right of the country, like having a lower corporate headline tax rate than its neighbours, and 2. Ireland has been involved in tax loopholes, such as the now defunct double irish/dutch sandwich stuff 3. You can find sourced articles for all of this. So at what point does putting this information as the most prominent information in a wide variety of Ireland related articles cross from being just adding facts to encyclopedia articles to being politically motivated? When one side is an active wikipedia admin and the other side is a bunch of casual editors or users who don't edit, who gets the benefit of the doubt? 1: https://old.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/bgyfet/til_theres_a_wikipedia_editor_called/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/bgyfet/til_theres_... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Ireland&oldid=837235350 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Irela...
- andrepd 6y ago
  All very well and true, but isn't this also a problem in closed encylopedias?? Surely even a paid editor has her biases, and at the very least would have to make a judgement call on whether or not to include that information in the opening paragraph and so on. Wikipedia actually has the advantage here as the discussion is completely open and you can see the all arguments and the process that led to a decision.
- jerry1979 6y ago
  Should I believe that the Republic of Ireland's wikipedia entry had an issue with how it talked about taxes, but now wikipedia has corrected that issue?
robin21 6y ago
Yeh if you read the talk pages (which are hard to find and many people wouldn’t even know about) you will find so many people pushing an agenda rather than trying to adhere to some neutrality. Small subtle changes designed to push someone’s world view. I think it’s so rare these days to find people who can remain objective and leave their opinions at the door. Everyone seems fueled by rage, it’s like their political views are their purpose in life.

buran77 6y ago

> at least somewhat helpful information is infinitely better than having nothing at all Maybe, at least as long as we still have a good ratio between reliable and unreliable info (whatever that ratio may be). But as long as someone can piggy-back on this reputation, and most people simply take all that info for granted, the effect of a disingenuous Wiki article is far higher than your average FB "fake news". It's that implicit trust that makes a Trojan horse more dangerous. There is no action being taken to make this process of correcting information more open and transparent, and out of the hands of a few people. Especially since it's been shown in the past that this kind of power was sold for money in PR campaigns, or used for revenge edits.

bitstan 6y ago
> the effect of a disingenuous Wiki article is far higher than your average FB "fake news" Wikipedia doesn't profit by weaponizing misinformation. That's FB's business model. All those people who stormed the capital. You think they were FB users or Wiki users? The thought of them diligently reading encyclopedia entries and becoming radicalized has me cackling.
- Swenrekcah 6y ago
  Well, they could have been reading conservapedia

will4274 6y ago

Sure. The article for Bill Ayers describes him as an "elementary education theorist." That's not what he's notable for.

jjk166 6y ago
And the article for John Wilkes Booth describes him as an "American stage actor" even though that's not what he's known for. If you keep reading the article, however, it's almost completely about what he is known for (a statement true for both cases). That's just standard wikipedia formatting.
- stonogo 6y ago
  "Standard wikipedia formatting" being burying the lead is not a compelling defense. It's damn near misleading. I find "an American stage actor who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln" to be a ridiculous introduction; it should read "an American assassin who killed President Abraham Lincoln" -- the man's profession is completely irrelevant; he is notable for this one act. It isn't even consistently applied: Ted Kaczynski is listed as a domestic terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan is "a Palestinian Christian militant," but then Charles Guiteau is a "writer and lawyer."
  - jjk166 6y ago
    Ted Kaczynski hasn't been anything other than a domestic terrorist since 1969 when he dropped out of academia at the ripe old age of 27. Sirhan Sirhan didn't have a profession, as far as I can tell he was working at a health food store when he assasinated RFK, and has spent the past 53 years incarcerated for it. Charles Guiteau had a long career prior to assassinating Garfield, as did Booth before assassinating Lincoln. While both committed assassinations, there was no point in time where you could have hired either to assassinate someone for you, it wasn't either of their professions.
    - stonogo 6y ago
      My whole point here is that their professions are not noteworthy, relevant, or interesting, but Wikipedian bureaucracy causes them to be mentioned, and I think it's dumb.