3 ms·

Wikipedia Co-Founder Condemns It: “Most Biased Encyclopedia” in History [video]

11 points by secondary_op 3y ago

DoItToMe81 3y ago
What is 'correct' on Wikipedia usually comes down to who has the most resources or spare time to continually put their point of view back into the article. It's true that there are biases, but isn't this guy the one who tried to depose Jimmy Wales by falsely reporting him for using Wikipedia to host child porn?
- blitzar 3y ago
  I suspect that they would classify that as a "biased take on history"
- beardyw 3y ago
  > What is 'correct' on Wikipedia usually comes down to who has the most resources That seems a somewhat narrow view. Most of Wikipedia is just facts, when someone was born, the speed of light, the building of St Paul's Cathedral etc. Very few have a political bias.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Much, most even, of Wikipedia isn't mere dates and velocities. There are statements about events and these statements can be framed in many ways. ( Disclosure: I'm Australian and take a dim view of both sides of the US political aisle. ) The opening framing of this interview by Glenn Greenwald discusses the political weaponisation of 'facts' as a recent problem on wikipedia. His example is his claim that for many many years his wikipedia bio was stable in the sense that edits of past events in his life were uncommon, most activity centred on new and recent events. He asserts that once he was seen as having shifted from the US left after having expressed skepticism about RussiaGate* his wikipedia page saw frequent rewrites of things far in his past, events were described in a manner to shed a negative spin, etc. * (as I recall he downplayed its importance with the position that 'we' (the USofA) have always done this to Russia and Russia has always meddled with the US)
  - whelp_24 3y ago
    There is bias in Wikipedia, and it becomes obvious if you try to edit or if you read enough of it. Most of Wikipedia is sourced and is good for quick reference but even the article on corn has intense debate on it's name. Everything is politics, and those who write for Wikipedia are not neutral.
  - yorwba 3y ago
    When was the Belarusian car manufacturer Unison founded? Belarusian Wikipedia says 2000: https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BD https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D0%BE... Belarusian Wikipedia in old orthography says 1996: https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BD https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%8... German Wikipedia says 2003: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unison_(Automobilhersteller) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unison_(Automobilhersteller) There's no English article. Whoever decides to write one will have invested more resources in its creation than anyone else, and consequently gets to decide which year is the "correct" one.
hunglee2 3y ago
there are some famous Wikipedia editors out there, whose prodigious work can only come from being 100% on platform, and likely remunerated in some way to do it. From the foreign policy perspective, it is an outstanding investment - narrative formation, globally amplified, for the price of a single person's annual salary
thriftwy 3y ago
They are still defending Bakhmut in Wikipedia, heroically. Did you know?
uwagar 3y ago
felt like wikipedia is whitey-pedia. the co-founder alludes to this re: wikipedia's treatment of eastern medicine. we have to treat it now like it is just another website with a prudish point of view.
rapnie 3y ago
Wikipedia documents Larry Sanger's criticisms on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Criticism_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Criticism_of_Wiki...

11 points by secondary_op 3y ago

What is 'correct' on Wikipedia usually comes down to who has the most resources or spare time to continually put their point of view back into the article. It's true that there are biases, but isn't this guy the one who tried to depose Jimmy Wales by falsely reporting him for using Wikipedia to host child porn?

blitzar 3y ago
I suspect that they would classify that as a "biased take on history"
beardyw 3y ago
> What is 'correct' on Wikipedia usually comes down to who has the most resources That seems a somewhat narrow view. Most of Wikipedia is just facts, when someone was born, the speed of light, the building of St Paul's Cathedral etc. Very few have a political bias.
- defrost 3y ago
  Much, most even, of Wikipedia isn't mere dates and velocities. There are statements about events and these statements can be framed in many ways. ( Disclosure: I'm Australian and take a dim view of both sides of the US political aisle. ) The opening framing of this interview by Glenn Greenwald discusses the political weaponisation of 'facts' as a recent problem on wikipedia. His example is his claim that for many many years his wikipedia bio was stable in the sense that edits of past events in his life were uncommon, most activity centred on new and recent events. He asserts that once he was seen as having shifted from the US left after having expressed skepticism about RussiaGate* his wikipedia page saw frequent rewrites of things far in his past, events were described in a manner to shed a negative spin, etc. * (as I recall he downplayed its importance with the position that 'we' (the USofA) have always done this to Russia and Russia has always meddled with the US)
- whelp_24 3y ago
  There is bias in Wikipedia, and it becomes obvious if you try to edit or if you read enough of it. Most of Wikipedia is sourced and is good for quick reference but even the article on corn has intense debate on it's name. Everything is politics, and those who write for Wikipedia are not neutral.
- yorwba 3y ago
  When was the Belarusian car manufacturer Unison founded? Belarusian Wikipedia says 2000: https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BD https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D0%BE... Belarusian Wikipedia in old orthography says 1996: https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BD https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%8... German Wikipedia says 2003: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unison_(Automobilhersteller) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unison_(Automobilhersteller) There's no English article. Whoever decides to write one will have invested more resources in its creation than anyone else, and consequently gets to decide which year is the "correct" one.

hunglee2 3y ago

there are some famous Wikipedia editors out there, whose prodigious work can only come from being 100% on platform, and likely remunerated in some way to do it. From the foreign policy perspective, it is an outstanding investment - narrative formation, globally amplified, for the price of a single person's annual salary

thriftwy 3y ago

They are still defending Bakhmut in Wikipedia, heroically. Did you know?

uwagar 3y ago

felt like wikipedia is whitey-pedia. the co-founder alludes to this re: wikipedia's treatment of eastern medicine. we have to treat it now like it is just another website with a prudish point of view.

rapnie 3y ago

Wikipedia documents Larry Sanger's criticisms on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Criticism_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Criticism_of_Wiki...