5 ms·

To your last point, I think this is something people get confused about. I think no reasonable person says science is always right and there is never any corrup

To your last point, I think this is something people get confused about. I think no reasonable person says science is always right and there is never any corruption in the process. Science is done by humans and humans are fallible. The argument is that science is the best we have, not that it's perfect. One thing I see with 100% of conspiracy theorists is that they have no self-awareness of when they're wrong. They will believe 1000 things and when 1 of them turns out to be true, they both think it validates the other 999 and will never consider they were perhaps right for the wrong reasons. My point is that, as you say, "Being firmly anti-pseudoscience and anti-conspiracy theory and anti-fringe might not be the best heuristic for discovering the truth", but it's the best we have. I'll also paraphrase one more quote that I heard from the great Tim Minchin, but he didn't know who to credit it to, "if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out".

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
But who gets to decide what stays on and what gets deleted? Does the tectonic plate theory stay on wikipedia, or do we delete it, since it's just a conspiracy theory (let's say we flew back in time a bit)? What about epsteins "suicide"? Would an articl about "heart problems as covid vaccine side-effect" stay on wikipedia a year and a half ago, or would it get deleted? In hindsight, it's easy... but who gets to decide about the 'now'?
- jl6 3y ago
  Wikipedia editors are supposed to evaluate what the consensus of reliable sources is, and report that. So there's a second-order game being played around what counts as a reliable source.
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  There is no answer that will satisfy everyone. In fact, there is no Right(TM) answer. The answer is the people who put in the effort to make wikipedia and the processes they've developed. Wikipedia isn't a right we're owed. It's done be people and those people make the choices and I can guarantee you they will make wrong choices at times. What I don't like is the attitude some have, not necessarily you, where it's either "this isn't perfect so it's all bad!" or "they were wrong about this one thing, therefore they are wrong about everything that I disagree with them on". We're humans. We're trying. And I believe most people there are doing it in good faith. That's literally the best we can do.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

But who gets to decide what stays on and what gets deleted? Does the tectonic plate theory stay on wikipedia, or do we delete it, since it's just a conspiracy theory (let's say we flew back in time a bit)? What about epsteins "suicide"? Would an articl about "heart problems as covid vaccine side-effect" stay on wikipedia a year and a half ago, or would it get deleted? In hindsight, it's easy... but who gets to decide about the 'now'?

jl6 3y ago
Wikipedia editors are supposed to evaluate what the consensus of reliable sources is, and report that. So there's a second-order game being played around what counts as a reliable source.
thinkingtoilet 3y ago
There is no answer that will satisfy everyone. In fact, there is no Right(TM) answer. The answer is the people who put in the effort to make wikipedia and the processes they've developed. Wikipedia isn't a right we're owed. It's done be people and those people make the choices and I can guarantee you they will make wrong choices at times. What I don't like is the attitude some have, not necessarily you, where it's either "this isn't perfect so it's all bad!" or "they were wrong about this one thing, therefore they are wrong about everything that I disagree with them on". We're humans. We're trying. And I believe most people there are doing it in good faith. That's literally the best we can do.