5 ms·

You're comparing a group chat to an encyclopedia...

factsarelolz 4y ago
> encyclopedia Encyclopedias are not warped to fit a minority groups opinion like Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is a website, not a trusted source. Not sure when Wikipedia became something more than a crowdsourced opinion site.
- recuter 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
nashashmi 4y ago
Wikipedia has become closer to group chat. And twitter closer to valuable dissemination of first person content.
- recuter 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_the_end_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_the_end_of_Wiki...
freeqaz 4y ago
I'd describe Twitter as closer to a news site in the modern era. There are a lot of journalists and other important public figures sharing information there, and that's especially true for important live news events like earthquakes. (Twitter is the first place I check if I feel the house shake, for example.)
- BowBun 4y ago
  Absolutely not. A news site presumes that a majority of the content on there is vetted, researched, and somewhat accurate within the bounds of typical news bias. Twitter is an open platform that anyone can say anything on. It's a social media site, and people happen to post their personal stories/experiences. Nothing more. I believe we wouldn't have such issues with misinformation if people stopped giving so much weight to everything they read on Twitter/Reddit/Facebook/etc.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    > A news site presumes that a majority of the content on there is vetted, researched, and somewhat accurate within the bounds of typical news bias. I don't know where you live, but here a news site is a site following political views or creating new stories which have nothing to do with reality. "researched, and somewhat accurate" is below 1 pecent of the site content.
- eldaisfish 4y ago
  the presence of journalists does not make twitter a "news" site. Twitter is a firehose of misinformation and nonsense, a fraction of which has some value.
  - dwheeler 4y ago
    I agree with your point. But to be fair, many news sites are also a source of misinformation and nonsense, a fraction of which has some value. When hearing any news, I think it's important to get some independent verification before doing anything serious with it. News sites should be doing that verification, but they are strongly pressured to get news out fast, and verification often suffers.
- rushilhalflife 4y ago
  I'd say it's more a bulletin or news board than a news website itself. Journalists don't work for Twitter and write news articles, they just share it via Twitter as a medium.
- linkjuice4all 4y ago
  By this logic the sidewalk in front of a bunch of newspaper vending machines is also a news site.
  - tankenmate 4y ago
    From a market of ideas vs information horizon perspective it is.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- bragr 4y ago
  USGS has a much better site for that. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/
  - BenjiWiebe 4y ago
    Twitter can actually be faster than USGS, in my experience. USGS can have a several minute delay sometimes, and Twitter can be merely seconds late.
LarryMullins 4y ago
Specifically with respect to receiving censorship demands from foreign governments, what is the meaningful difference between the two?
- recuter 4y ago
  One of them is an encyclopedia.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    I'm asking you to explain why that difference is relevant to the consideration of receiving censorship demands from foreign governments. In my view, there is no relevant difference and both organizations should refuse these demands.
hulitu 4y ago
> You're comparing a group chat to an encyclopedia... Wikipedia is also a "grup chat". Just look at the history of any page. (Hint: discussion).
- BenjiWiebe 4y ago
  So yes, that is a chat. However, >99.9% of views of Wikipedia are not the history/chat. Less sure about this one, but probably greater than 99% of people using Wikipedia don't even know that that exists.

> encyclopedia Encyclopedias are not warped to fit a minority groups opinion like Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is a website, not a trusted source. Not sure when Wikipedia became something more than a crowdsourced opinion site.

recuter 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

nashashmi 4y ago

Wikipedia has become closer to group chat. And twitter closer to valuable dissemination of first person content.

recuter 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_the_end_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_the_end_of_Wiki...

freeqaz 4y ago

I'd describe Twitter as closer to a news site in the modern era. There are a lot of journalists and other important public figures sharing information there, and that's especially true for important live news events like earthquakes. (Twitter is the first place I check if I feel the house shake, for example.)

BowBun 4y ago
Absolutely not. A news site presumes that a majority of the content on there is vetted, researched, and somewhat accurate within the bounds of typical news bias. Twitter is an open platform that anyone can say anything on. It's a social media site, and people happen to post their personal stories/experiences. Nothing more. I believe we wouldn't have such issues with misinformation if people stopped giving so much weight to everything they read on Twitter/Reddit/Facebook/etc.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > A news site presumes that a majority of the content on there is vetted, researched, and somewhat accurate within the bounds of typical news bias. I don't know where you live, but here a news site is a site following political views or creating new stories which have nothing to do with reality. "researched, and somewhat accurate" is below 1 pecent of the site content.
eldaisfish 4y ago
the presence of journalists does not make twitter a "news" site. Twitter is a firehose of misinformation and nonsense, a fraction of which has some value.
- dwheeler 4y ago
  I agree with your point. But to be fair, many news sites are also a source of misinformation and nonsense, a fraction of which has some value. When hearing any news, I think it's important to get some independent verification before doing anything serious with it. News sites should be doing that verification, but they are strongly pressured to get news out fast, and verification often suffers.
rushilhalflife 4y ago
I'd say it's more a bulletin or news board than a news website itself. Journalists don't work for Twitter and write news articles, they just share it via Twitter as a medium.
linkjuice4all 4y ago
By this logic the sidewalk in front of a bunch of newspaper vending machines is also a news site.
- tankenmate 4y ago
  From a market of ideas vs information horizon perspective it is.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bragr 4y ago
USGS has a much better site for that. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/
- BenjiWiebe 4y ago
  Twitter can actually be faster than USGS, in my experience. USGS can have a several minute delay sometimes, and Twitter can be merely seconds late.

LarryMullins 4y ago

Specifically with respect to receiving censorship demands from foreign governments, what is the meaningful difference between the two?

recuter 4y ago
One of them is an encyclopedia.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  I'm asking you to explain why that difference is relevant to the consideration of receiving censorship demands from foreign governments. In my view, there is no relevant difference and both organizations should refuse these demands.

hulitu 4y ago

> You're comparing a group chat to an encyclopedia... Wikipedia is also a "grup chat". Just look at the history of any page. (Hint: discussion).

BenjiWiebe 4y ago
So yes, that is a chat. However, >99.9% of views of Wikipedia are not the history/chat. Less sure about this one, but probably greater than 99% of people using Wikipedia don't even know that that exists.