4 ms·
Give it time. As Wikipedia has become more and more obsessed with being "encyclopedic", I've noticed that they are increasingly ending up with articles that are
by harimau777 3y ago
Give it time. As Wikipedia has become more and more obsessed with being "encyclopedic", I've noticed that they are increasingly ending up with articles that are stripped of any useful information.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago[flagged]
- djmips 3y ago^ toxic comment. - "People like you" - "always" - "You" "calling them a failure" - all hostile. Should have stopped after first sentence.
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoMaybe I should have stopped after the first sentence, but there's always, every bloody time, someone there to drag you down with negativity. How wiki is shit, stackoverflow is shit, the web is shit, society is shit – they never offer evidence, it's just shit and they can't see good in anything. I'm tired of these people dragging me down. What is their fucking agenda other than to wallow in failure?
- drekipus 3y agoPeople having an opinion on something doesn't affect you. Just relax. Swearing at them, calling them out, "people like you" etc, affects them. I have to have this exact same discussion with my 60yo bipolar neighbour who terrorizes a whole ecovillage, because someone planted carrots and "don't they know the seasonal pattern!!" - just relax, focus on your lane
- dang 3y agoPlease don't cross into personal attack when posting to HN. You can make your substantive points without that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoIndeed. So let's be consistent "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something". How did the comment I responded to say anything useful, constructive or usefully critical? Negative but vacuous dismissals like theirs seem ok. I hate that aspect of HN; the nihilism allowed to flower.
- the_only_law 3y agoHN rules are fickle at best. Only way to get a good idea of how they’re enforced is to observe for some time.
- dang 3y agoTwo answers: (1) it's not possible to be consistent because there are far too many posts for us to read; we can only moderate what we see. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com; and (2) shallow as the GP's criticism may have been, your comment was far worse. Responding to a bad comment (or one you feel is bad) by breaking the site guidelines yourself, let alone with a nasty personal attack, is exactly the opposite of what you should be doing here—it's driving the wrong way down a one-way street.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago1) fair enough. Should the negative empty comment I was referring to have been flagged for your attention? I appreciate the answer may very well be "no, you're wasting our time with the little stuff", and I'd agree. 2) I honestly don't know how to respond to people like this. Their purpose is to negate, even purposefully destroy. I've sat down with people I've worked with who are apathetic and hopeless and slowly taught them that they can make a difference but I can't do that over the Internet. And it fills me with despair watching them trash what good things we do have. (BTW thank you for replying, I appreciate it)
- 3y ago
- rockskon 3y agoWikipedia is also very poor when it comes to contentious political topics that the bulk of contributors are extremely passionate about.
- Jeff_Brown 3y agoI once pointed out on a music theory page that a long name for a scale could be shortened to "Dorian b2". The edit was rejected because the chief whatever wanted a source. If you knew what Dorian means and what the second degree of a scale means you'd know immediately that what I was saying was true. I've hardly suggested an edit since.
- t0bia_s 3y agoIdea of centralized and universal interpenetration of information soon or later bump into boundaries. By definition, it's impossible approach. Interpretation vary with knowledge, culture and is shaped by politics, religion, regime, etc.
- whatshisface 3y agoThat's why you don't interpret it, just list it: encyclopedically.
- moate 3y agoThat’s literally impossible. You’re consciousness trapped in meat, everything you experience is an interpretation of your environment and entirely subject to that meat. “The Republican Party exists” is an interpretation of each word, and is controversial on some axis. “2” is a concept, it literally does not exist outside of the mind. This is to say: your desire for objectivity has failed, the best we can ever get are “well defined and explained rationalizations that many people agree with”.
- whatshisface 3y agoAn objective, encyclopediac approach to philosophy would be listing the views on whether or not the word exists applied to a political party.
- t0bia_s 3y agoUntil someone called it toxic, disinformation, hoax, etc.
- t0bia_s 3y agoHistory is written by winners. If you agree, then there is a lot of unlisted informations. If you don't agree, then you are on the winners side.
- 3y ago