4 ms·

I personally agree in the homeopathy case, but what about other cases? I generally think Wiki's NPOV is pretty good, but I'm sure there are corner cases I disag

I personally agree in the homeopathy case, but what about other cases? I generally think Wiki's NPOV is pretty good, but I'm sure there are corner cases I disagree with or they are wrong about. By stating a view as a definitive NPOV it becomes difficulty to change people's minds

kstrauser 3y ago
I'm no longer convinced that changing the minds of someone who already believes a fringe theory is generally useful or productive. The big return on investment comes from being honest about the fringe theory's status to people who haven't made up their minds. In this case, you may not talk someone out of believing in homeopathy, particularly if they've invested a lot of time or money in it. You may have better luck with people who are first hearing about homeopathy, visiting the article, and seeing that it's junk. I've seen this play out in other subjects, like global warming (there's not a real "both sides"; climate scientists nearly universally believe in it), evolution (almost no biologists believe in Creationism), chiropractic (there's no plausible mechanism of action; studies fail to show that it works for anything beyond some back pain), the "electric universe" (cosmologists universally think it's dumb), and many others. Diehards are gonna diehard. People on the fence can benefit from a solid dose of reality.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  Trying to figure out which of the five fringe science groups you mentioned are downvoting this comment
LastTrain 3y ago
It is a community run site. It has warts, like anything. I can't really think of a better example of how something on the internet has been run than Wikipedia, can you? And no one is saying it is perfect.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  > It is a community run site. Are you sure? Why? Because they told you it is? Because you donated? Because you see the people that make edits and articles? What if it a community labor site? How would you as an outsider be able to tell the difference?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - LastTrain 3y ago
    Are you sure the moon's not green? Hey I've made a few edits over the years and there they are. Maybe that's just another part of the big ruse? They cleverly keep /my/ edits around? Maybe only I see them? Maybe we're all living in a simulation...
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      I do recall getting shadowbanned from Wikipedia in middle school because I kept repeatedly creating an article about my friend, pretending he was a famous person. Indeed they made my edits only visible to me. But of course it was easy to notice that going on another IP address.
      - LastTrain 3y ago
        Didn’t we all do that :-)
        hot_gril 3y ago
        Getting the school IP temp banned from Wikipedia was a rite of passage in computer class. Tell a bunch of 13yos that there's a site anyone can edit, you know what'll happen.
      - jowea 3y ago
        I've read a bit about Wikipedia's ban policies and never saw anything about shadowbanning. You're sure the article wasn't just blocked from creation?
- hot_gril 3y ago
  I'm also impressed with Wikipedia's quality, given its background. I even go there first for some developing news.

kstrauser 3y ago

I'm no longer convinced that changing the minds of someone who already believes a fringe theory is generally useful or productive. The big return on investment comes from being honest about the fringe theory's status to people who haven't made up their minds. In this case, you may not talk someone out of believing in homeopathy, particularly if they've invested a lot of time or money in it. You may have better luck with people who are first hearing about homeopathy, visiting the article, and seeing that it's junk. I've seen this play out in other subjects, like global warming (there's not a real "both sides"; climate scientists nearly universally believe in it), evolution (almost no biologists believe in Creationism), chiropractic (there's no plausible mechanism of action; studies fail to show that it works for anything beyond some back pain), the "electric universe" (cosmologists universally think it's dumb), and many others. Diehards are gonna diehard. People on the fence can benefit from a solid dose of reality.

lucubratory 3y ago
Trying to figure out which of the five fringe science groups you mentioned are downvoting this comment

LastTrain 3y ago

It is a community run site. It has warts, like anything. I can't really think of a better example of how something on the internet has been run than Wikipedia, can you? And no one is saying it is perfect.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
> It is a community run site. Are you sure? Why? Because they told you it is? Because you donated? Because you see the people that make edits and articles? What if it a community labor site? How would you as an outsider be able to tell the difference?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- LastTrain 3y ago
  Are you sure the moon's not green? Hey I've made a few edits over the years and there they are. Maybe that's just another part of the big ruse? They cleverly keep /my/ edits around? Maybe only I see them? Maybe we're all living in a simulation...
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    I do recall getting shadowbanned from Wikipedia in middle school because I kept repeatedly creating an article about my friend, pretending he was a famous person. Indeed they made my edits only visible to me. But of course it was easy to notice that going on another IP address.
    - LastTrain 3y ago
      Didn’t we all do that :-)
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        Getting the school IP temp banned from Wikipedia was a rite of passage in computer class. Tell a bunch of 13yos that there's a site anyone can edit, you know what'll happen.
    - jowea 3y ago
      I've read a bit about Wikipedia's ban policies and never saw anything about shadowbanning. You're sure the article wasn't just blocked from creation?
hot_gril 3y ago
I'm also impressed with Wikipedia's quality, given its background. I even go there first for some developing news.