5 ms·

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_Ukrai

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.

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.