3 ms·
To parent's point, I think this is still better than what we had before. I mean, encyclopedias didn't have sources at all, and people were overly confident in
by makeitdouble 3y ago
To parent's point, I think this is still better than what we had before.
I mean, encyclopedias didn't have sources at all, and people were overly confident in books being correct.
On the niche topic part, I wonder if we'll ever be able to do something about it. I don't believe in AI check being a good fit for specialized or rare contexts, and as there's fewer eyes it's by definition more complicated to cross reference and have many active contributors on the same topics.
Even with more appeal to authority (let's say you get more power to edit if you're proven to be an expert in the field) I assume that would get abused to insert personal gripes in some place or another.
- Manuel_D 3y agoTo be fair, I don't think there's much more Wikipedia could do better. Wikipedia is largely self-correcting in that the more eyeballs an article has, the more likely that wrong or biased claims will be challenged. I actually think the idea of creating a separate class of "proven experts" would make the situation worse: it'd just entrench whatever the expert opinion is which may even be more biased than the normal contributor base. The main thing is to check out the talk pages. That's where the controversies crop up and at least you know the opposing view.
- tivert 3y ago> Wikipedia is largely self-correcting in that the more eyeballs an article has, the more likely that wrong or biased claims will be challenged. I think that concept is a fairy tale. It's kind of like open source software: just because the code is out there doesn't mean anyone's looking for bugs in or or fixing them. Wikipedia articles settle on the stalemate between its most obsessive or motivated users, the result of which is frequently is wrong or biased. The quantity of eyeballs is irrelevant.