4 ms·

It can be taken seriously enough but I can also change Suleiman the Magnificent’s birthplace to Nairobi and no one will notice for a week. Wikipedia should pub

It can be taken seriously enough but I can also change Suleiman the Magnificent’s birthplace to Nairobi and no one will notice for a week. Wikipedia should publish curated “editions” like a traditional encyclopedia.

duckmysick 4y ago
I assume curating would mean freezing and cross-checking each article. This would take a while (I imagine years) and by the time it's done the information would be outdated.
esperent 4y ago
> I can also change Suleiman the Magnificent’s birthplace to Nairobi and no one will notice for a week. Have you actually tried doing something like that? You might be surprised how fast it gets reverted.
- akolbe 4y ago
  I think it's a case of a million people trying, and 99% being reverted. Which sounds great, until you realise that it means ten thousand bits of nonsense aren't spotted. Case in point: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-hoax/ https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-ho...
- peanut_worm 4y ago
  Yes. I have had edits stay for months.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    This one stayed for ten years: https://wikipediocracy.com/2022/08/11/wikipedias-credibility-is-toast/ https://wikipediocracy.com/2022/08/11/wikipedias-credibility...
marginalia_nu 4y ago
I don't think vandalism is the big problem. It's not hard to find articles that are written with some agenda, either product advertisement or political motives, but presented with the same objective encyclopedic tone as the rest. This article is a pretty good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_programming The entire article is basically an advertisement for the idea, citing a handful of fairly old studies, including prominently a fairly odd one in its own section: "In an online survey of pair programmers from 2000, 96% of programmers stated that they enjoyed work more while pair programming than programming alone. Furthermore, 95% said that they were more confident in their work when they pair programmed. [...]" Just... stop and think about that survey for a moment. At a glance you might not catch it, but they basically asked people who prefer pair programming whether they prefer pair programming, and discovered that yeah, almost all of them did. Both the "indicators of non-performance" and "pairing variations" also seem oddly out of place in a wiki article.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  I just considered something as you described this: I have a knack for sniffing bullshit on the web. It is intuitive and unconscious, that I don't really assume something is true if the combination of topic and source could lend itself to self-service. On the other hand, if I see sources I'm aware of or on a topic that is less likely to be controversial, I feel more comfortable believing something. I bet many people do not operate this way. Also, I tend not to make big life decisions on anything in Wikipedia; if it is doing any more than satisfying curiosity, I am looking for additional sources. I think it is a good general purpose encyclopedia and the world is better for having it.

duckmysick 4y ago

I assume curating would mean freezing and cross-checking each article. This would take a while (I imagine years) and by the time it's done the information would be outdated.

esperent 4y ago

> I can also change Suleiman the Magnificent’s birthplace to Nairobi and no one will notice for a week. Have you actually tried doing something like that? You might be surprised how fast it gets reverted.

akolbe 4y ago
I think it's a case of a million people trying, and 99% being reverted. Which sounds great, until you realise that it means ten thousand bits of nonsense aren't spotted. Case in point: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-hoax/ https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-ho...
peanut_worm 4y ago
Yes. I have had edits stay for months.
- akolbe 4y ago
  This one stayed for ten years: https://wikipediocracy.com/2022/08/11/wikipedias-credibility-is-toast/ https://wikipediocracy.com/2022/08/11/wikipedias-credibility...

marginalia_nu 4y ago

I don't think vandalism is the big problem. It's not hard to find articles that are written with some agenda, either product advertisement or political motives, but presented with the same objective encyclopedic tone as the rest. This article is a pretty good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_programming The entire article is basically an advertisement for the idea, citing a handful of fairly old studies, including prominently a fairly odd one in its own section: "In an online survey of pair programmers from 2000, 96% of programmers stated that they enjoyed work more while pair programming than programming alone. Furthermore, 95% said that they were more confident in their work when they pair programmed. [...]" Just... stop and think about that survey for a moment. At a glance you might not catch it, but they basically asked people who prefer pair programming whether they prefer pair programming, and discovered that yeah, almost all of them did. Both the "indicators of non-performance" and "pairing variations" also seem oddly out of place in a wiki article.

unethical_ban 4y ago
I just considered something as you described this: I have a knack for sniffing bullshit on the web. It is intuitive and unconscious, that I don't really assume something is true if the combination of topic and source could lend itself to self-service. On the other hand, if I see sources I'm aware of or on a topic that is less likely to be controversial, I feel more comfortable believing something. I bet many people do not operate this way. Also, I tend not to make big life decisions on anything in Wikipedia; if it is doing any more than satisfying curiosity, I am looking for additional sources. I think it is a good general purpose encyclopedia and the world is better for having it.