4 ms·

Sorry, I am not quite sure what the problem is? I think Wikipedia is great from my day to usage. Can you point me to specific examples where the output is bad d

by bwb 5y ago

Sorry, I am not quite sure what the problem is? I think Wikipedia is great from my day to usage. Can you point me to specific examples where the output is bad due to this? I would like to see the problem.

smt88 5y ago
I personally haven't seen a biased Wikipedia article in a very long time. It is absolutely astounding to me and seems like one of the great successes of internet culture. I assume OP has a particular set of issues that they are not in agreement with the majority of experts on.
- itsoktocry 5y ago
  >I personally haven't seen a biased Wikipedia article in a very long time. What leads you to believe you can so easily spot a biased article? Everyone believes they're a neutral arbiter.
  - smt88 5y ago
    "Biased" to me doesn't mean "I disagree". It means: - presented as a fact, rather than as the opinion of a scholar/researcher/etc. (meaning Wikipedia says it is true without citing anyone else) - ignoring a significant controversy or dissent - describing uncertain information as certain - perpetuating the myth that science is settled and can't be updated with new information
    - mst 5y ago
      Pages with culture war elements will inevitably be impacted by the culture war positions of the active editors in the area in question affecting how strictly a given source is judged for quality. I'm deliberately avoiding giving examples because it seems logical to assume that I'd merely reflect my own culture war positions with respect to any such example and thereby generate more heat than light. Overall though I still think wikipedia turns out pretty reasonably as a whole even given having seen a number of situations where I disagreed with the outcome.
- mechanical_bear 5y ago
  “Experts” just depends on who you draw on as an expert: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/24/wikipedias-political-science-coverage-is-biased-i-tried-fix-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/24/wikipedia... https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/02/02/169470/computational-linguistics-reveals-how-wikipedia-articles-are-biased-against-women/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/02/02/169470/computati... https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/
  - smt88 5y ago
    I don't have a set of experts in my mind. To me, experts are people who have spent a lot of time studying something firsthand, have turned over their research in a transparent way, who submit their work to criticism by their peers and the public, and who have no hidden financial backing from a biased party.
coffeefirst 5y ago
Yeah, I don't get it either. It's not perfect, but it might be the only web institution that hasn't broken down over time, and has done an impressive job of holding itself to quality standards given the absurdly large scale. Encyclopedias are, by definition, fairly superficial. You could also sit down and nitpick Britannica. The quality of writing is better because they actually have a professional staff, but they have to make all the same hard choices about what to include and objectivity.
- tasha0663 5y ago
  > the only web institution that hasn't broken down over time, and has done an impressive job of holding itself to quality standards given the absurdly large scale. Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg come to mind. Wikipedia might be an encyclopedia, but those are the libraries.
xtracto 5y ago
Look at the Serrapeptidase entry. Then do a cursory search on google on the same and then on google scholar. You will see the amount of information missing from the wiki page.(compare with Serrapeptidase entry on say drugs.com). Then look at the Talk page of the entry. You'll see the editorial battle there with some "power editors" squashing any attempt to correct the page.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  I've looked at the talk page and there are no proposals for actionable changes to the article. With these controversial or WP:OWN'd articles, you really need to post the equivalent of a pull request: "I want to change text A to B, supported by reliable references X, Y and Z". If nobody at all replies, post also to the related WikiProject talk pages to solicit comments from a broader audience. If no one disagrees even then, then you can be WP:BOLD and make the edit, since you'll be able to point out that you were looking for a proper consensus.
  - xtracto 5y ago
    I've no idea at all about wikipedia inner workings. I'm mostly just an occasional reader. I was just surprised at how little information it had about Serrapeptidase when I saw it and curiously checked the talk page. It showed me the type of politics and game that can happen behind wikipedia. I really dont care, I just click back and looked at the other better Google results. It's only kind of sad, given wikipedia"s origins/mission (im old enough to remember when wikipedia was created. It's one of the few remnants of the "old" web)

by bwb 5y ago

smt88 5y ago

I personally haven't seen a biased Wikipedia article in a very long time. It is absolutely astounding to me and seems like one of the great successes of internet culture. I assume OP has a particular set of issues that they are not in agreement with the majority of experts on.

itsoktocry 5y ago
>I personally haven't seen a biased Wikipedia article in a very long time. What leads you to believe you can so easily spot a biased article? Everyone believes they're a neutral arbiter.
- smt88 5y ago
  "Biased" to me doesn't mean "I disagree". It means: - presented as a fact, rather than as the opinion of a scholar/researcher/etc. (meaning Wikipedia says it is true without citing anyone else) - ignoring a significant controversy or dissent - describing uncertain information as certain - perpetuating the myth that science is settled and can't be updated with new information
  - mst 5y ago
    Pages with culture war elements will inevitably be impacted by the culture war positions of the active editors in the area in question affecting how strictly a given source is judged for quality. I'm deliberately avoiding giving examples because it seems logical to assume that I'd merely reflect my own culture war positions with respect to any such example and thereby generate more heat than light. Overall though I still think wikipedia turns out pretty reasonably as a whole even given having seen a number of situations where I disagreed with the outcome.
mechanical_bear 5y ago
“Experts” just depends on who you draw on as an expert: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/24/wikipedias-political-science-coverage-is-biased-i-tried-fix-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/24/wikipedia... https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/02/02/169470/computational-linguistics-reveals-how-wikipedia-articles-are-biased-against-women/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/02/02/169470/computati... https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/
- smt88 5y ago
  I don't have a set of experts in my mind. To me, experts are people who have spent a lot of time studying something firsthand, have turned over their research in a transparent way, who submit their work to criticism by their peers and the public, and who have no hidden financial backing from a biased party.

coffeefirst 5y ago

Yeah, I don't get it either. It's not perfect, but it might be the only web institution that hasn't broken down over time, and has done an impressive job of holding itself to quality standards given the absurdly large scale. Encyclopedias are, by definition, fairly superficial. You could also sit down and nitpick Britannica. The quality of writing is better because they actually have a professional staff, but they have to make all the same hard choices about what to include and objectivity.

tasha0663 5y ago
> the only web institution that hasn't broken down over time, and has done an impressive job of holding itself to quality standards given the absurdly large scale. Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg come to mind. Wikipedia might be an encyclopedia, but those are the libraries.

xtracto 5y ago

Look at the Serrapeptidase entry. Then do a cursory search on google on the same and then on google scholar. You will see the amount of information missing from the wiki page.(compare with Serrapeptidase entry on say drugs.com). Then look at the Talk page of the entry. You'll see the editorial battle there with some "power editors" squashing any attempt to correct the page.

zozbot234 5y ago
I've looked at the talk page and there are no proposals for actionable changes to the article. With these controversial or WP:OWN'd articles, you really need to post the equivalent of a pull request: "I want to change text A to B, supported by reliable references X, Y and Z". If nobody at all replies, post also to the related WikiProject talk pages to solicit comments from a broader audience. If no one disagrees even then, then you can be WP:BOLD and make the edit, since you'll be able to point out that you were looking for a proper consensus.
- xtracto 5y ago
  I've no idea at all about wikipedia inner workings. I'm mostly just an occasional reader. I was just surprised at how little information it had about Serrapeptidase when I saw it and curiously checked the talk page. It showed me the type of politics and game that can happen behind wikipedia. I really dont care, I just click back and looked at the other better Google results. It's only kind of sad, given wikipedia"s origins/mission (im old enough to remember when wikipedia was created. It's one of the few remnants of the "old" web)