7 ms·

Wikipedia is currently in an edit war over the definition of recession

61 points by Jerry2 4y ago

coding123 4y ago
By the time I'm dead in 2070 we'll have two dictionaries, one for the left and one for the right. At least we'll have flying cars.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Conservapedia is long established.
- wahern 4y ago
  People seem to underestimate the degree to which political groups internalize their opponents arguments, or even occasionally swap sides. For every dispute in the current moment, I could identify many more prior disputes where one group now agrees with their opponent's original claim. (Of course, this begs the question of group continuity, but either way the consequence is the same--partisan differences generally don't grow unbounded.) American conservatives today have internalized many mid-20th century liberal civil rights arguments, especially regarding 1st Amendment jurisprudence. Conversely, over the past several decades conservatives have been so successful in selling constitutional Originalism that liberals now reflexively (and without any sense of irony) resort to making Originalist claims. Indeed, one reason conservatives don't realize they've adopted what not too long ago were extremely far left beliefs is because of exhaustive efforts to re-contextualize them in terms of newly revealed historical narratives. The more general belief that history can indisputably resolve claims has slowly been internalized by liberals, too. It's why both sides now endlessly bicker over historical narratives and regularly put forth ever more bizarre and facially false historical claims. Somewhat similarly, conservatives and liberals seem to cycle through periods where one side or the other relies on "science" to provide irrefutable answers. In another few decades don't be surprised if conservatives become stalwart defenders of programs and rules intended to address global warming, while liberals advocate for programs seemingly in conflict.
  - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
    God this is such a good comment. Absolutely yes. It is such an absurd clown show. I've heard politics compared to professional wrestling and I feel that is very apt.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    Would be cool if there were a list of these somewhere, but it would be an lot of research work.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  It'd need to be temporal in nature since both sides would gleefully swap definitions depending on who is in the White House at the time.
- viraptor 4y ago
  I'm not sure how that applies here. What are the left/right sides of the disputed change? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&diff=1100966700&oldid=1100955875 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&diff=11...)
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I'm rather doubtful about one of those... And it is the flying cars.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Just redefine "flying" as weighing 5 tonnes and being covered with anti-pedestrian spikes and you're all good.
    - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
      We essentially did something similar with the hoverboard craze a few years back. Ten years ago no one would have said a hoverboard should roll around on wheels but now they do.
themodelplumber 4y ago
Wow, I tried to predict what I'd see but I didn't expect it to be such a funny mix of professor archetype vs. student archetype right off the bat. The general situation is also kind of amusing because if you want to really contribute to the solution of a one-word problem (not their job, I know, but), it's usually very helpful to start by listing as many definitions of that one word as you can. Especially if there's disagreement over the correct definition. And then the super secret trick next move is to never throw any of the definitions away, but rather to identify the leverage points of each separate definition. And poof, where you once had a disagreement, you now have a bunch of discrete tools with identified advantages, and hopefully the smarts to use 'em! (I also get that the WP community can also be extremely singular in its honing-in approach to problem solving. In general, a really common introvert curse is always being too focused on one conclusion, one question, one process, etc.)
anigbrowl 4y ago
I'd say it's less about the definition than who gets to write the lead line, on the basis that that's as far as many people will go in using a link or screenshot to win internet arguments. I have no strong feelings either way about the wording. The lead of an article is generally a place to introduce a concept and explain why it matters in a few sentences, but the '2 quarters of negative growth' heuristic for measuring (rather than defining) a recession is so widespread that it's not really an object of controversy. Had the person who changed it offered that their aim was economy and clarity I doubt much argument would have broken out, though editing for style is best done at a low point of the news cycle around any given topic. But responding to the lukewarm reception of the rewrite with accusations of narrative warfare, censorship, and so on look a little forced, to put it mildly.
akomtu 4y ago
Failing to foresee the imminent collision with an iceberg, the 2 captains are arguing about the definition of words "iceberg" and "collision", cheering the sailors, who by now have split into two camps and have started fighting each other.
- xeromal 4y ago
  I appreciate this analogy.
AlbertCory 4y ago
My Eyes Glaze Over. People have customarily defined recession a certain way, i.e.'2 quarters of negative growth'. If there were historically any other way of defining it, it would be totally reasonable to cite that now. But inventing a new way now can't be anything but a dodge.
- _23sd 4y ago
  >If there were historically any other way of defining it, it would be totally reasonable to cite that now. Well, there has. For US recessions, Wikipedia has historically relied on NBER research to decide when recessions begin and end. Don't believe me, check out this version of the list of recessions from 2008 recession era [1], or a more recent one from 2021 [2]. Even though the 2008 article's lead incorrectly suggests that it uses the 2 quarters of negative growth definition, for modern recessions they are referencing the NBER's dating, which back in 2008 (and well before that) was looking at other measures [3]. Here's an article from 2004 about the NBER changing the start date of the early 2000s recession, and comments under it complaining that the methodology was changed to make Bush look good (it wasn't actually changed) [4]. Within the context of Wikipedia, this current dispute is ridiculous and entirely politically motivated. Being quite cynical, I think the people fighting to change the lead of the "Recession" article to remove the reference to the NBER are trying to create an incorrect perception that it is some obscure and probably liberal organization that liberal media outlets are using to protect Biden. In fact, for better or worse it seems to have long been the "official" authority on recessions in the US as far as economists and historians are concerned. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States&oldid=206574041 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_recession... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States&oldid=1044717388 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_recession... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20080306073115/http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html https://web.archive.org/web/20080306073115/http://www.nber.o... [4] https://alt.politics.narkive.com/4cf9LZYk/economists-say-recession-started-in-2000 https://alt.politics.narkive.com/4cf9LZYk/economists-say-rec...
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    I don't doubt that there has been an official definition, but the need is (and always has been) for a quick one. I see nothing wrong with both of them coexisting.
tidenly 4y ago
I dont know what kind of people I expected wikipedia editors to be, but this Soibangla person is pretty much it. Big reddit moderator energy about them.
- yucky 4y ago
  Wikipedia is heavily astroturfed, and interestingly enough they get a ton of funding from the Tides Foundation, which is a dark money PAC. Even better, the General Counsel of Wikimedia is Amanda Keton who came over directly from the Tides Foundation. https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/amanda-keton/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/amanda-keton/ Wikipedia is untrustworthy now, and it sucks.
  - ianai 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
  - wahern 4y ago
    Tom Wheeler, former FCC chairman, was one of the fiercest and effective advocates for consumer rights and (from the perspective of most people on HN) Internet freedom ever on the commission. Yet before his appointment he was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries--more than just a lobbyist, he was president of their foremost industry lobbying organizations. If you have specific evidence of prejudice, or better yet arguments regarding specific policy positions, feel free to share them. To my mind, ad hominem arguments reflect more a dearth of substantive criticisms than they do a likelihood of bias and abuse.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      That's a two way street. Elizibeth Warren is basically the reverse story. Long time consumer advocate it was hard to find much fault with then sold her morals to the DNC and their donors for a senate seat.
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
Not much of a surprise. We've spent the last two years redefining words, most with the tacit approval of even the majority of the crowd here, so why would it stop now?
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Actually - "redefine" means to change the definition for political or arbitrary reasons. Language naturally evolves. All languages do and have. The fact that our language continues to evolve is unremarkable - that's not "redefining" anything. Recession means two quarters of negative GDP growth while a Republican is President and basically always has. It doesn't apply here!
  - DuskStar 4y ago
    Absolutely fantastic. I bet that first paragraph gets said seriously within the year.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      He didn't pull it out of nowhere. The reason it seems so spot on is because we've seen so many people on HN (and other places) say lightly paraphrased versions of that first paragraph so many times over the past several years.
  - niknoble 4y ago
    The tone of the first paragraph is spot on and had me fully convinced. I wasn't even surprised when I read it. I just felt the usual low-level disappointment that I've felt whenever reading any mainstream news, art, advertising, etc over the last 2 years.
  - sethjr5rtfgh 4y ago
    > Actually - "redefine" means to change the definition for political or arbitrary reasons. Language naturally evolves. All languages do and have. The fact that our language continues to evolve is unremarkable - that's not "redefining" anything. Actually, "redefine" means to change the definition regardless of the motive.
Kon-Peki 4y ago
Official Definition: When arguments about whether or not we are in a recession get so frequent and heated that they are annoying, we are in a recession. When people accept their fate and stop talking about it, the recession has ended.
jsnk 4y ago
Wikipedia should allow diversity and decentralization of an entry. Allowing multiple views of an entry would do wonders to people's pursuit of truth instead of misleading people of just one view presented from an entry.
- the_biot 4y ago
  Bullshit. Facts are facts.
  - sfe22 4y ago
    Have to disagree. Many things are not that clear cut. Decentralization will never hurt. You can also have your own “Facts are facts” entry xD
  - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
    True, but the problem is that people disagree on the facts quite often, and you end up with prevailing narratives that are wholly garbage.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  I mean we could just make a federated wiki which resolves in the order of your choosing. Wonder if one exists already.
renewiltord 4y ago
Intro to article reads > Although the definition of a recession varies between different countries and scholars, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession.[3][4][5] In the United States, a recession is defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".[6] In the United Kingdom and other countries, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters Nothing significant in many hours on history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&action=... Despite breathlessness around "redefine" and such nonsense, nothing going on
michaericalribo 4y ago
A weird little section in the talk page: > What's the deal with there being a million edits on this page in one day? > Articles get edited a lot, for all kinds of reasons… The fact that a page is being edited doesn't itself mean something crazy is going on. It usually means someone is replacing a colon with a semicolon. Maybe in principle, but 1 million edits?? That’s like 12 a second. Not impossibly large, but it feels disingenuous to claim “something crazy” isn’t going on. I doubt many other pages get edited 12 times a second for 24hr straight.
scotuswroteus 4y ago
"Recession" is backward looking and doesn't mean "everyone in poverty," so there's way too much energy being used to fight this meaningless war of optics. Look at the savings rate, look at various metrics of inflation and purchasing power, or look at the stability/volatility of the market.
sschueller 4y ago
I don't think many people still give a shit. During the "good times" people were already suffocating in medical/school dept, underpaid and burned out.

61 points by Jerry2 4y ago

By the time I'm dead in 2070 we'll have two dictionaries, one for the left and one for the right. At least we'll have flying cars.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hotpotamus 4y ago
Conservapedia is long established.
wahern 4y ago
People seem to underestimate the degree to which political groups internalize their opponents arguments, or even occasionally swap sides. For every dispute in the current moment, I could identify many more prior disputes where one group now agrees with their opponent's original claim. (Of course, this begs the question of group continuity, but either way the consequence is the same--partisan differences generally don't grow unbounded.) American conservatives today have internalized many mid-20th century liberal civil rights arguments, especially regarding 1st Amendment jurisprudence. Conversely, over the past several decades conservatives have been so successful in selling constitutional Originalism that liberals now reflexively (and without any sense of irony) resort to making Originalist claims. Indeed, one reason conservatives don't realize they've adopted what not too long ago were extremely far left beliefs is because of exhaustive efforts to re-contextualize them in terms of newly revealed historical narratives. The more general belief that history can indisputably resolve claims has slowly been internalized by liberals, too. It's why both sides now endlessly bicker over historical narratives and regularly put forth ever more bizarre and facially false historical claims. Somewhat similarly, conservatives and liberals seem to cycle through periods where one side or the other relies on "science" to provide irrefutable answers. In another few decades don't be surprised if conservatives become stalwart defenders of programs and rules intended to address global warming, while liberals advocate for programs seemingly in conflict.
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  God this is such a good comment. Absolutely yes. It is such an absurd clown show. I've heard politics compared to professional wrestling and I feel that is very apt.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  Would be cool if there were a list of these somewhere, but it would be an lot of research work.
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
It'd need to be temporal in nature since both sides would gleefully swap definitions depending on who is in the White House at the time.
viraptor 4y ago
I'm not sure how that applies here. What are the left/right sides of the disputed change? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&diff=1100966700&oldid=1100955875 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&diff=11...)
Ekaros 4y ago
I'm rather doubtful about one of those... And it is the flying cars.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Just redefine "flying" as weighing 5 tonnes and being covered with anti-pedestrian spikes and you're all good.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    We essentially did something similar with the hoverboard craze a few years back. Ten years ago no one would have said a hoverboard should roll around on wheels but now they do.

themodelplumber 4y ago

Wow, I tried to predict what I'd see but I didn't expect it to be such a funny mix of professor archetype vs. student archetype right off the bat. The general situation is also kind of amusing because if you want to really contribute to the solution of a one-word problem (not their job, I know, but), it's usually very helpful to start by listing as many definitions of that one word as you can. Especially if there's disagreement over the correct definition. And then the super secret trick next move is to never throw any of the definitions away, but rather to identify the leverage points of each separate definition. And poof, where you once had a disagreement, you now have a bunch of discrete tools with identified advantages, and hopefully the smarts to use 'em! (I also get that the WP community can also be extremely singular in its honing-in approach to problem solving. In general, a really common introvert curse is always being too focused on one conclusion, one question, one process, etc.)

anigbrowl 4y ago

I'd say it's less about the definition than who gets to write the lead line, on the basis that that's as far as many people will go in using a link or screenshot to win internet arguments. I have no strong feelings either way about the wording. The lead of an article is generally a place to introduce a concept and explain why it matters in a few sentences, but the '2 quarters of negative growth' heuristic for measuring (rather than defining) a recession is so widespread that it's not really an object of controversy. Had the person who changed it offered that their aim was economy and clarity I doubt much argument would have broken out, though editing for style is best done at a low point of the news cycle around any given topic. But responding to the lukewarm reception of the rewrite with accusations of narrative warfare, censorship, and so on look a little forced, to put it mildly.

akomtu 4y ago

Failing to foresee the imminent collision with an iceberg, the 2 captains are arguing about the definition of words "iceberg" and "collision", cheering the sailors, who by now have split into two camps and have started fighting each other.

xeromal 4y ago
I appreciate this analogy.

AlbertCory 4y ago

My Eyes Glaze Over. People have customarily defined recession a certain way, i.e.'2 quarters of negative growth'. If there were historically any other way of defining it, it would be totally reasonable to cite that now. But inventing a new way now can't be anything but a dodge.

_23sd 4y ago
>If there were historically any other way of defining it, it would be totally reasonable to cite that now. Well, there has. For US recessions, Wikipedia has historically relied on NBER research to decide when recessions begin and end. Don't believe me, check out this version of the list of recessions from 2008 recession era [1], or a more recent one from 2021 [2]. Even though the 2008 article's lead incorrectly suggests that it uses the 2 quarters of negative growth definition, for modern recessions they are referencing the NBER's dating, which back in 2008 (and well before that) was looking at other measures [3]. Here's an article from 2004 about the NBER changing the start date of the early 2000s recession, and comments under it complaining that the methodology was changed to make Bush look good (it wasn't actually changed) [4]. Within the context of Wikipedia, this current dispute is ridiculous and entirely politically motivated. Being quite cynical, I think the people fighting to change the lead of the "Recession" article to remove the reference to the NBER are trying to create an incorrect perception that it is some obscure and probably liberal organization that liberal media outlets are using to protect Biden. In fact, for better or worse it seems to have long been the "official" authority on recessions in the US as far as economists and historians are concerned. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States&oldid=206574041 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_recession... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States&oldid=1044717388 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_recession... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20080306073115/http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html https://web.archive.org/web/20080306073115/http://www.nber.o... [4] https://alt.politics.narkive.com/4cf9LZYk/economists-say-recession-started-in-2000 https://alt.politics.narkive.com/4cf9LZYk/economists-say-rec...
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  I don't doubt that there has been an official definition, but the need is (and always has been) for a quick one. I see nothing wrong with both of them coexisting.

tidenly 4y ago

I dont know what kind of people I expected wikipedia editors to be, but this Soibangla person is pretty much it. Big reddit moderator energy about them.

yucky 4y ago
Wikipedia is heavily astroturfed, and interestingly enough they get a ton of funding from the Tides Foundation, which is a dark money PAC. Even better, the General Counsel of Wikimedia is Amanda Keton who came over directly from the Tides Foundation. https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/amanda-keton/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/amanda-keton/ Wikipedia is untrustworthy now, and it sucks.
- ianai 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
- wahern 4y ago
  Tom Wheeler, former FCC chairman, was one of the fiercest and effective advocates for consumer rights and (from the perspective of most people on HN) Internet freedom ever on the commission. Yet before his appointment he was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries--more than just a lobbyist, he was president of their foremost industry lobbying organizations. If you have specific evidence of prejudice, or better yet arguments regarding specific policy positions, feel free to share them. To my mind, ad hominem arguments reflect more a dearth of substantive criticisms than they do a likelihood of bias and abuse.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    That's a two way street. Elizibeth Warren is basically the reverse story. Long time consumer advocate it was hard to find much fault with then sold her morals to the DNC and their donors for a senate seat.

Mountain_Skies 4y ago

Not much of a surprise. We've spent the last two years redefining words, most with the tacit approval of even the majority of the crowd here, so why would it stop now?

ALittleLight 4y ago
Actually - "redefine" means to change the definition for political or arbitrary reasons. Language naturally evolves. All languages do and have. The fact that our language continues to evolve is unremarkable - that's not "redefining" anything. Recession means two quarters of negative GDP growth while a Republican is President and basically always has. It doesn't apply here!
- DuskStar 4y ago
  Absolutely fantastic. I bet that first paragraph gets said seriously within the year.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    He didn't pull it out of nowhere. The reason it seems so spot on is because we've seen so many people on HN (and other places) say lightly paraphrased versions of that first paragraph so many times over the past several years.
- niknoble 4y ago
  The tone of the first paragraph is spot on and had me fully convinced. I wasn't even surprised when I read it. I just felt the usual low-level disappointment that I've felt whenever reading any mainstream news, art, advertising, etc over the last 2 years.
- sethjr5rtfgh 4y ago
  > Actually - "redefine" means to change the definition for political or arbitrary reasons. Language naturally evolves. All languages do and have. The fact that our language continues to evolve is unremarkable - that's not "redefining" anything. Actually, "redefine" means to change the definition regardless of the motive.

Kon-Peki 4y ago

Official Definition: When arguments about whether or not we are in a recession get so frequent and heated that they are annoying, we are in a recession. When people accept their fate and stop talking about it, the recession has ended.

jsnk 4y ago

Wikipedia should allow diversity and decentralization of an entry. Allowing multiple views of an entry would do wonders to people's pursuit of truth instead of misleading people of just one view presented from an entry.

the_biot 4y ago
Bullshit. Facts are facts.
- sfe22 4y ago
  Have to disagree. Many things are not that clear cut. Decentralization will never hurt. You can also have your own “Facts are facts” entry xD
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  True, but the problem is that people disagree on the facts quite often, and you end up with prevailing narratives that are wholly garbage.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
I mean we could just make a federated wiki which resolves in the order of your choosing. Wonder if one exists already.

renewiltord 4y ago

Intro to article reads > Although the definition of a recession varies between different countries and scholars, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession.[3][4][5] In the United States, a recession is defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".[6] In the United Kingdom and other countries, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters Nothing significant in many hours on history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&action=... Despite breathlessness around "redefine" and such nonsense, nothing going on

michaericalribo 4y ago

A weird little section in the talk page: > What's the deal with there being a million edits on this page in one day? > Articles get edited a lot, for all kinds of reasons… The fact that a page is being edited doesn't itself mean something crazy is going on. It usually means someone is replacing a colon with a semicolon. Maybe in principle, but 1 million edits?? That’s like 12 a second. Not impossibly large, but it feels disingenuous to claim “something crazy” isn’t going on. I doubt many other pages get edited 12 times a second for 24hr straight.

scotuswroteus 4y ago

"Recession" is backward looking and doesn't mean "everyone in poverty," so there's way too much energy being used to fight this meaningless war of optics. Look at the savings rate, look at various metrics of inflation and purchasing power, or look at the stability/volatility of the market.

sschueller 4y ago

I don't think many people still give a shit. During the "good times" people were already suffocating in medical/school dept, underpaid and burned out.