2 ms·

This Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events It’s not perfect, but Wikipedia d

This Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events It’s not perfect, but Wikipedia does a good job of being neutral and sticking with facts. On forums like HN, Facebook and Reddit, I rarely bother with correcting people. The sites are not tailored towards factual information, they’re tailored towards engagement. And dis-information is more engaging (people argue about it) than straight facts.

WithinReason 5y ago
RSS feed to it: https://www.to-rss.xyz/wikipedia/current_events/ https://www.to-rss.xyz/wikipedia/current_events/
exodust 5y ago
> "And dis-information is more engaging (people argue about it) than straight facts." Odd statement. People generally don't enter a discussion with the intention of "engaging with disinformation". They are intending to engage in discussion. Sometimes facts are agreed, with contested implications; other times contested facts and exchange of evidence informing those facts. > "The sites are not tailored towards factual information." Tailored? See, we could right now engage in a discussion about "fact tailors" and whether they exist. And if they do exist, is the art of tailoring not about adjusting presentation in a manner that suppresses unsightly truth so the end result looks good? > I rarely bother with correcting people. In other words, you're denying those people the opportunity to be corrected by you!