7 ms·

I'm not sure if I share the same assessment. I am amazed at how robust your typical Wikipedia page is despite the chaos that goes into writing it. Given that it

I'm not sure if I share the same assessment. I am amazed at how robust your typical Wikipedia page is despite the chaos that goes into writing it. Given that it's not possible to make a version of reality that everyone is happy with, I think Wikipedia comes pretty dang close.

legitster 5y ago
As an example, I want to point people to the page I have been spending a lot of time on as of late: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... Is the information on this page perfect? Obviously not. But this single page probably represents the best up-to-date summary of information you will find on the internet. And I can only imagine the thankless work volunteer editors put into making it coherent and readable - free from random garbage and conspiracy theories.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Even more amazingly the invasion article on the Russian wikipedia was really good as well (as of a few days ago).
  - contravariant 5y ago
    Did this change or was it a few days ago that you last checked?
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      The latter
- rozab 5y ago
  Articles on conflicts are usually shockingly well written. I spend a lot of time reading them, at least in part for entertainment. The one on the Congo Crisis is fantastic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis I guess I'm not the only one doing this, because there's this meme trend of making video edits of these articles. Pretty much captures how it feels to read them if you're into it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48hGOxw2heg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48hGOxw2heg
- noxer 5y ago
  I didn't read it all but wasn't hard to find "mistakes" in that wiki article For example: "Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland and Singapore have agreed to sanctions." Clearly a misrepresentation of Swiss neutrality. The news outlets all over the world posted this and various similar claims over the last week and wiki picks it up. Some news articles even straight out tell you that Switzerland ditched its neutrality and "picked a side" in this war. It could not be more wrong. But Wikipedia doesn't care about right or wrong it just repeats what a subset of sources say even if its like in this case obviously propaganda.
  - windmark 5y ago
    Can you elaborate with sources for someone who have only read the main stream media about this?
    - noxer 5y ago
      "Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland [...] have agreed to sanctions." This implies that Switzerland neutrality is somehow relevant while in reality it is not. It implies sanctions DESPITE neutrality. https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebersicht/2022/03/neutralitaet.html https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebers...
      - topranks 5y ago
        I get it - you feel the word “neutrality” should only be used to mean military neutrality - and you’re annoyed that Wikipedia has used a broader definition used by various media outlets. I think what your arguing here is semantics, as opposed to something that’s “factually incorrect”. The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will. It’s a downside of requiring citations to support statements. But probably unavoidable.
        5y ago
- timcederman 5y ago
  If you check out previous comments from the OP, I think you'll find it's entries like that they're upset about.
civilized 5y ago
I agree. While some articles may seem to have a slant in emphasis, I can't recall a time when credible information contrary to the slant was omitted or distorted. That's much better than I can say for just about any other source I read online. I remain an avid wikipedia reader.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- actuator 5y ago
  > some articles may seem to have a slant in emphasis The editorial slant which sets the tone of the article also colours the thoughts of the reader, it is not just dissemination or omission of facts. Moreover, editors do tend to give more weightage to some sources than the other if they are reporting on the same issue.
  - civilized 5y ago
    > The editorial slant which sets the tone of the article also colours the thoughts of the reader, it is not just dissemination or omission of facts. Yes, but as I said, Wikipedia is much less bad in this respect than any other source. If I have the sources, at least I can do my own digging. With most other sources I have to assume there is information contrary to the slant that is being swept under the rug, and I won't immediately know where to find that information. > editors do tend to give more weightage to some sources than the other if they are reporting on the same issue. Sometimes there is good reason to do this. Some sources are more credible than others. If editors didn't exercise judgment in selection of sources, Wikipedia would just be a disinformation playground dominated by the most energetic propagandists.
    - actuator 5y ago
      > Some sources are more credible than others. I am not saying we should trust DailyMail more than BBC. My issue is with sources where the lines are more blurry. Say, they will not publish outright misinformation but they will definitely have a editorial stance which colours their coverage. > If editors didn't exercise judgment in selection of sources, Wikipedia would just be a disinformation playground dominated by the most energetic propagandists Agreed. But how do we rank which sources are better than the other. Sure, remove ones which publish outright misinformation but after that how do you rank them. The source will be discussed in WP:NEWSORG boards, the people weighing in on the discussion will be established editors of the site. They will more likely tend to rate sources which fit their echo chambers better higher than others. The same sources will get more weightage in Wikipedia articles. When argued against, Wikipedia editors will cite it is trusted more. It is a self fulfilling loop. This is why my original question was, is any user curated platform doomed to reach this state.
ajross 5y ago
I tend to agree. Wikipedia does a fantastic job of trying to stay objective. I think the real root here is that the last decade has led to a bifurcation of "facts" across partisan lines. There are realms of discourse where people just don't think it's appropriate to present unrefuted fact A without also presenting perspective B, even if the support for B is mostly just spin. So someone reads an article on A and thinks it's "biased" because it doesn't lead to the readers' own opinions. But that's not something Wikipedia can solve, and I think they do what they can about as well as is possible. Here's a good example page of the effect, check out some of the edit wars on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Efficacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19... The result is a little jumbled, with some contradictory spin still lurking in sentences here and there. But for the most part the article has limited itself to an objective treatment, and done well.
- actuator 5y ago
  The face mask article example you gave is actually one of the ones which would be less affected by established editor bias as there would be more editors from different regions participating in editing it. Moreover claims by health organisations like WHO can be used to prove or disprove the efficacy of masks. But this is a luxury articles that are dealing with established authorities publishing information have. Articles on persons and social issues tend to mostly not have any such authority and the debate is mostly generated through opinion.
  - ajross 5y ago
    Do you have an example? I mean, I'm sure there's a terrible-but-forgotten-and-ignored page in there, but in my experience Wikipedia's rules about citation and notability work very well to limit expressions of opinion in the pages. Are you absolutely sure you aren't just expressing the effect I noted? You got mad because a page listed facts, but not the "right" facts?
    - actuator 5y ago
      No, I am fine with the facts being listed and with the page in contention, I wasn't even discussing the presence or omission of the fact. My concern was with the weightage the said fact had in the overall article. The weightage of the said issue in the summary and article, seems to far outweigh what it deserved.
mardifoufs 5y ago
This is a good example of an amazingly bad article with the worst type of wiki lawyering on the talk page. It basically still has the same conclusion in the lead as when it was originally created, and most of the claims/leaks against Hunter were considered "false"/dinsinfo... But now that those laptop leaks were either confirmed by different reputable sources, it more or less indirectly calls most of the claims true yet still ends up labeling everything a conspiracy theory for absolutely no reason other than some editors going all "nuh uh" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira... >"Almost no one is not no one, and simply the "fact" it was Hunter's laptop does not in itself establish anything improper, unless someone is upset about porn. We have no knowledge of its chain of custody. For all anyone knows, his laptop was snatched and flown to an SVR lab in Moscow for "enhancement" before being given to Rudy/Bannon. The Politico piece was not picked up by any other reliable source, it relies exclusively on an assertion by some unnamed guy whose credibility is unknown, hence it is REDFLAG and UNDUE" After ignoring articles from the guardian, politico, the nyt just because it's supposedly not relevant. And even if it was actually hunter's laptop who care right? It has nothing to do with the article centered on the claims that it was his laptop. I think ultimately this is just unconsequential, and the hunter story does not really matter, but if you contrast it with the wiki page on the russian links with trump, the extreme selectivity in sources somehow just... disappear. Keep in mind that no one is actually contesting that the contents of the laptop are actually from hunter at this point except for Wikipedia. Even the emails have been pretty conclusively proven to be his. The problem is that it leads to just more preaching to the choir; usually wikipedia is pretty good at neutrality in the tone of it's articles (even when those are biaised, which is normal). But with such a blatant attempt at mental gymnastics through the entire article, you end up convincing no one that the info is actually legit or credible. A lot of recent political articles end up being written in a manner much more similar to a smug RationalWiki article than to an actual encyclopedic text
- minerva23 5y ago
  > the extreme selectivity in sources somehow just... disappear Unimportant articles will draw a different crowd than more important articles. Those different groups will have different standards for sources and tone/bias. What changes have you made to that article that were rejected / rolled back? How long have you been making edits to it?
xtracto 5y ago
I've got a good counter example: Thwme wikipedia entry on Serrapeptidase is a disgrace. The talk page is very enlightening: a couple of "powerful" editors took the page and created a narrative they want to show. While lots of people are showing plenty of evidence around the web showing other points of view. The result is a very poorly informative wiki page that lacks a lot of the information that can be found in all web sites from the first page results of a Google search.

legitster 5y ago

As an example, I want to point people to the page I have been spending a lot of time on as of late: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... Is the information on this page perfect? Obviously not. But this single page probably represents the best up-to-date summary of information you will find on the internet. And I can only imagine the thankless work volunteer editors put into making it coherent and readable - free from random garbage and conspiracy theories.

formerly_proven 5y ago
Even more amazingly the invasion article on the Russian wikipedia was really good as well (as of a few days ago).
- contravariant 5y ago
  Did this change or was it a few days ago that you last checked?
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    The latter
rozab 5y ago
Articles on conflicts are usually shockingly well written. I spend a lot of time reading them, at least in part for entertainment. The one on the Congo Crisis is fantastic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis I guess I'm not the only one doing this, because there's this meme trend of making video edits of these articles. Pretty much captures how it feels to read them if you're into it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48hGOxw2heg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48hGOxw2heg
noxer 5y ago
I didn't read it all but wasn't hard to find "mistakes" in that wiki article For example: "Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland and Singapore have agreed to sanctions." Clearly a misrepresentation of Swiss neutrality. The news outlets all over the world posted this and various similar claims over the last week and wiki picks it up. Some news articles even straight out tell you that Switzerland ditched its neutrality and "picked a side" in this war. It could not be more wrong. But Wikipedia doesn't care about right or wrong it just repeats what a subset of sources say even if its like in this case obviously propaganda.
- windmark 5y ago
  Can you elaborate with sources for someone who have only read the main stream media about this?
  - noxer 5y ago
    "Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland [...] have agreed to sanctions." This implies that Switzerland neutrality is somehow relevant while in reality it is not. It implies sanctions DESPITE neutrality. https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebersicht/2022/03/neutralitaet.html https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebers...
    - topranks 5y ago
      I get it - you feel the word “neutrality” should only be used to mean military neutrality - and you’re annoyed that Wikipedia has used a broader definition used by various media outlets. I think what your arguing here is semantics, as opposed to something that’s “factually incorrect”. The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will. It’s a downside of requiring citations to support statements. But probably unavoidable.
      - 5y ago
timcederman 5y ago
If you check out previous comments from the OP, I think you'll find it's entries like that they're upset about.

civilized 5y ago

I agree. While some articles may seem to have a slant in emphasis, I can't recall a time when credible information contrary to the slant was omitted or distorted. That's much better than I can say for just about any other source I read online. I remain an avid wikipedia reader.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
actuator 5y ago
> some articles may seem to have a slant in emphasis The editorial slant which sets the tone of the article also colours the thoughts of the reader, it is not just dissemination or omission of facts. Moreover, editors do tend to give more weightage to some sources than the other if they are reporting on the same issue.
- civilized 5y ago
  > The editorial slant which sets the tone of the article also colours the thoughts of the reader, it is not just dissemination or omission of facts. Yes, but as I said, Wikipedia is much less bad in this respect than any other source. If I have the sources, at least I can do my own digging. With most other sources I have to assume there is information contrary to the slant that is being swept under the rug, and I won't immediately know where to find that information. > editors do tend to give more weightage to some sources than the other if they are reporting on the same issue. Sometimes there is good reason to do this. Some sources are more credible than others. If editors didn't exercise judgment in selection of sources, Wikipedia would just be a disinformation playground dominated by the most energetic propagandists.
  - actuator 5y ago
    > Some sources are more credible than others. I am not saying we should trust DailyMail more than BBC. My issue is with sources where the lines are more blurry. Say, they will not publish outright misinformation but they will definitely have a editorial stance which colours their coverage. > If editors didn't exercise judgment in selection of sources, Wikipedia would just be a disinformation playground dominated by the most energetic propagandists Agreed. But how do we rank which sources are better than the other. Sure, remove ones which publish outright misinformation but after that how do you rank them. The source will be discussed in WP:NEWSORG boards, the people weighing in on the discussion will be established editors of the site. They will more likely tend to rate sources which fit their echo chambers better higher than others. The same sources will get more weightage in Wikipedia articles. When argued against, Wikipedia editors will cite it is trusted more. It is a self fulfilling loop. This is why my original question was, is any user curated platform doomed to reach this state.

ajross 5y ago

I tend to agree. Wikipedia does a fantastic job of trying to stay objective. I think the real root here is that the last decade has led to a bifurcation of "facts" across partisan lines. There are realms of discourse where people just don't think it's appropriate to present unrefuted fact A without also presenting perspective B, even if the support for B is mostly just spin. So someone reads an article on A and thinks it's "biased" because it doesn't lead to the readers' own opinions. But that's not something Wikipedia can solve, and I think they do what they can about as well as is possible. Here's a good example page of the effect, check out some of the edit wars on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Efficacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19... The result is a little jumbled, with some contradictory spin still lurking in sentences here and there. But for the most part the article has limited itself to an objective treatment, and done well.

actuator 5y ago
The face mask article example you gave is actually one of the ones which would be less affected by established editor bias as there would be more editors from different regions participating in editing it. Moreover claims by health organisations like WHO can be used to prove or disprove the efficacy of masks. But this is a luxury articles that are dealing with established authorities publishing information have. Articles on persons and social issues tend to mostly not have any such authority and the debate is mostly generated through opinion.
- ajross 5y ago
  Do you have an example? I mean, I'm sure there's a terrible-but-forgotten-and-ignored page in there, but in my experience Wikipedia's rules about citation and notability work very well to limit expressions of opinion in the pages. Are you absolutely sure you aren't just expressing the effect I noted? You got mad because a page listed facts, but not the "right" facts?
  - actuator 5y ago
    No, I am fine with the facts being listed and with the page in contention, I wasn't even discussing the presence or omission of the fact. My concern was with the weightage the said fact had in the overall article. The weightage of the said issue in the summary and article, seems to far outweigh what it deserved.

mardifoufs 5y ago

This is a good example of an amazingly bad article with the worst type of wiki lawyering on the talk page. It basically still has the same conclusion in the lead as when it was originally created, and most of the claims/leaks against Hunter were considered "false"/dinsinfo... But now that those laptop leaks were either confirmed by different reputable sources, it more or less indirectly calls most of the claims true yet still ends up labeling everything a conspiracy theory for absolutely no reason other than some editors going all "nuh uh" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira... >"Almost no one is not no one, and simply the "fact" it was Hunter's laptop does not in itself establish anything improper, unless someone is upset about porn. We have no knowledge of its chain of custody. For all anyone knows, his laptop was snatched and flown to an SVR lab in Moscow for "enhancement" before being given to Rudy/Bannon. The Politico piece was not picked up by any other reliable source, it relies exclusively on an assertion by some unnamed guy whose credibility is unknown, hence it is REDFLAG and UNDUE" After ignoring articles from the guardian, politico, the nyt just because it's supposedly not relevant. And even if it was actually hunter's laptop who care right? It has nothing to do with the article centered on the claims that it was his laptop. I think ultimately this is just unconsequential, and the hunter story does not really matter, but if you contrast it with the wiki page on the russian links with trump, the extreme selectivity in sources somehow just... disappear. Keep in mind that no one is actually contesting that the contents of the laptop are actually from hunter at this point except for Wikipedia. Even the emails have been pretty conclusively proven to be his. The problem is that it leads to just more preaching to the choir; usually wikipedia is pretty good at neutrality in the tone of it's articles (even when those are biaised, which is normal). But with such a blatant attempt at mental gymnastics through the entire article, you end up convincing no one that the info is actually legit or credible. A lot of recent political articles end up being written in a manner much more similar to a smug RationalWiki article than to an actual encyclopedic text

minerva23 5y ago
> the extreme selectivity in sources somehow just... disappear Unimportant articles will draw a different crowd than more important articles. Those different groups will have different standards for sources and tone/bias. What changes have you made to that article that were rejected / rolled back? How long have you been making edits to it?

xtracto 5y ago

I've got a good counter example: Thwme wikipedia entry on Serrapeptidase is a disgrace. The talk page is very enlightening: a couple of "powerful" editors took the page and created a narrative they want to show. While lots of people are showing plenty of evidence around the web showing other points of view. The result is a very poorly informative wiki page that lacks a lot of the information that can be found in all web sites from the first page results of a Google search.