5 ms·

The interesting thing about truth is that it is binary by its nature. Something is either true or false. There is no "My Truth" or "Your Truth" as the public sc

The interesting thing about truth is that it is binary by its nature. Something is either true or false. There is no "My Truth" or "Your Truth" as the public school system would corrupt you into believing but there is only "The Truth". Since you cannot account for a random person telling the truth without recourse, there is no implicit trust in Wikipedia. The lie in the world is that people are basically good. No, people are basically greedy of fame and fortune. People want and they mostly want the wrong things at the wrong times and for the wrong reasons. Given these facts trust cannot be implied if reputation and gain are not inherent in the founding of the trust. Zero trust is even worse because now you have nothing. Wikipedia is untrustworthy at best and is only useful as a stepping stone to the truth not as a source and certainly not as an immutable source.

armchairhacker 4y ago
Truth is rarely binary , it’s nuanced and detailed and when you convert it into a simple statement you inject your own opinion. The world isn’t black and white. For example, you’re right that people are naturally greedy, but most are also naturally altruistic. Many people are kind to strangers, and provide help as long as it doesn’t get in their way. Most Wikipedia authors want the popularity which is why they publish, but they’re not publishing the wrong information (esp. because it’s more likely to be removed). Wikipedia is for the most part trustworthy because there are a lot of people who have dedicated themselves to providing “truth”, and while these people each have their own biases especially wrt controversial articles, the factual content is agreed on and so that it what ultimately gets published.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  What you are describing is "consensus" among those with the power to veto or edit articles.

armchairhacker 4y ago

Truth is rarely binary , it’s nuanced and detailed and when you convert it into a simple statement you inject your own opinion. The world isn’t black and white. For example, you’re right that people are naturally greedy, but most are also naturally altruistic. Many people are kind to strangers, and provide help as long as it doesn’t get in their way. Most Wikipedia authors want the popularity which is why they publish, but they’re not publishing the wrong information (esp. because it’s more likely to be removed). Wikipedia is for the most part trustworthy because there are a lot of people who have dedicated themselves to providing “truth”, and while these people each have their own biases especially wrt controversial articles, the factual content is agreed on and so that it what ultimately gets published.

_aavaa_ 4y ago
What you are describing is "consensus" among those with the power to veto or edit articles.