3 ms·
Certainly 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 "main
by keiferski 3y ago
Certainly 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...