2 ms·

It's generally accurate. It suffers from the fundamental problem of truth by consensus rather than truth by competence, though. There is severe cherry-picking

It's generally accurate. It suffers from the fundamental problem of truth by consensus rather than truth by competence, though. There is severe cherry-picking about disputed issues. An experience I had some years back makes it very clear. It was an Israel/Palestine article, I noticed one item that should have a link didn't. Being naive about it's biases at the time I added the missing link--no words changed, just the link added behind a couple of words. It got reverted--that's a link the left would prefer people not make.

esperent 4y ago
> reverted--that's a link the left would prefer people not make. Notably, you haven't shared the link here. So all we're getting is vague accusations about "the left". What was the link? And why do you think it was removed?
- yucky 4y ago
  Not to speak for the person you're replying to, but I included several sources in my response above, if that helps. Just in terms of their financial/organizational potential for bias
Beltalowda 4y ago
I agree it's generally accurate, but I think it suffers from "truth by persistence" rather than "truth by consensus". That is, the editors who are the most persistent often "win". As an example, many years ago I edited some rather unflattering information to a controversial politician's Wikipedia article, properly referenced and cited of course. It was promptly removed by a "fan" and accused of "spreading lies" by referencing "obscure sites" or whatnot (the references were not obscure). I just ... gave up, because fuck this shit, and it's not all that important anyway. It is in the current version though, so someone took up the torch I guess. Either way, as a persistent and slightly-rude-but-not-rude-enough-to-be-banned editor you can exert a lot of control (and it takes quite a lot to be banned from Wikipedia in the first place). This is not a problem of "the left", or at least not uniquely so. In my example it was a right wing politician.

esperent 4y ago

> reverted--that's a link the left would prefer people not make. Notably, you haven't shared the link here. So all we're getting is vague accusations about "the left". What was the link? And why do you think it was removed?

yucky 4y ago
Not to speak for the person you're replying to, but I included several sources in my response above, if that helps. Just in terms of their financial/organizational potential for bias

Beltalowda 4y ago

I agree it's generally accurate, but I think it suffers from "truth by persistence" rather than "truth by consensus". That is, the editors who are the most persistent often "win". As an example, many years ago I edited some rather unflattering information to a controversial politician's Wikipedia article, properly referenced and cited of course. It was promptly removed by a "fan" and accused of "spreading lies" by referencing "obscure sites" or whatnot (the references were not obscure). I just ... gave up, because fuck this shit, and it's not all that important anyway. It is in the current version though, so someone took up the torch I guess. Either way, as a persistent and slightly-rude-but-not-rude-enough-to-be-banned editor you can exert a lot of control (and it takes quite a lot to be banned from Wikipedia in the first place). This is not a problem of "the left", or at least not uniquely so. In my example it was a right wing politician.