5 ms·
Are you making sure to include citations to proven reliable sources to back up your contributions? If so, then you can dispute any reverts on the article's Talk
by segasaturn 3y ago
Are you making sure to include citations to proven reliable sources to back up your contributions? If so, then you can dispute any reverts on the article's Talk page. My experience with Wikipedia is that they are extraordinarily open and fair, and honestly they give more benefit of the doubt to editors than most of them deserve.
- keiferski 3y agoCertainly the task of determining "the truth" is a difficult one, but Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources is not very good and basically just means "mainstream, well-funded news organization."
- legitster 3y agoThis is the better criticism of Wikipedia. But it's really not a criticism of Wikipedia directly - it's more of a indictment on how media creates Zeitgeists and reality conforms to them.
- keiferski 3y agoBut it is a criticism of Wikipedia directly. There is no reason why they couldn't come up with a more thoughtful, complete validation method. Instead, they just default to a last-century model of trust.
- legitster 3y agoIt's hard to imagine that Wikipedia with a centralized authority to handle "validation" would be remotely the same Wikipedia.
- keiferski 3y agoI already find it to be highly centralized and with a very obvious monoculture.
- toyg 3y agoLet me guess - a leftist bias?
- keiferski 3y agoNo, not really. More like a broadly Western one. It’s more complicated and specific than that, but I don’t really want to get into it here. All I’ll say is that if you read a variety of different opinions on subjects, the viewpoint of Wikipedia becomes fairly easy to predict and observe.
- duskwuff 3y agoWhat other "validation method" do you have in mind?
- keiferski 3y agoI don’t have anything in mind, because I don’t run a Wikipedia competitor. I haven’t spent enough time thinking about it. But certainty anything other than “just trust what the big media companies say” would be an improvement. In general I find Wikipedia articles to be written from a very specific viewpoint that highlights certain facts and hides others. Whether this is from Wikipedia writers themselves or is merely a reflection of their sources, I’m not sure. But if the goal is to provide the truth, I don’t think they make a particularly good effort at incorporating alternative perspectives.
- toyg 3y agoThe thing is: mainstream validation works. Whenever little-known sources are introduced, the chances of information being false or misleading just skyrockets. Moderator rings are often detected that way - all citing the same obscure publications that turn out to be factually incorrect.
- duskwuff 3y agoThe internal essay on "verifiability, not truth" [1] comes to mind. Determining what is Actually True is difficult and often contentious; determining what reliable sources say about the topic is easier and can itself convey important information when those sources disagree. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t...
- m00x 3y agoA lot of citations just use Fox News, Vox, CNN, etc. as fact. Wikipedia isn't very serious about scientific/objective truth.
- foverzar 3y agoThis and lots of highly opinionated literature. Not that there is anything wrong with opinions, but they should at least be referenced as such when there is a clear debate. Otherwise it just erodes trust - this actually seems to be an awfully common sentiment towards wikipedia, as it is evident even from neighboring comments.