3 ms·

I used to (and still am) one of the highest ranked editors you can be without becoming an administrator. Wikipedia has its problems, and I spent years fighting

I used to (and still am) one of the highest ranked editors you can be without becoming an administrator. Wikipedia has its problems, and I spent years fighting them- but I slowly realized there is no better way to do it. Wikipedia is not an arbitrator of truth: everything needs a reliable, secondary source[0]. This means the content has to be notable enough that a reputable source wrote about it, and you cannot reference things like git commits or research papers (since they don't provide context and most people can't understand them). If a Wikipedia article does use one of those sources, delete the paragraph. If you get into an Edit war, you'll win. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

jmclnx 1y ago
Yes, I am sure what you say is true, but eventually the article(s) in question will be corrected, or tagged in some manner. But just look at what Trump is doing to the Smithsonian, one example is turning US Slavery History into something even all slaves loved. Or erasing Trump's 2 Impeachments. You and everyone with even a little bit of smarts knows the articles that will be first targeted is US Slavery History and Trump's multiple Impeachments.
- OsrsNeedsf2P 1y ago
  Even if whitehouse.gov rewrites history, or forces reputable outlets to make "corrections", Wikipedia articles can (and do) reference archives.
serain 1y ago
this is false. all you have to do is see a mildly controversial article like "woman". it is all opinionated. and citing sources to add similar content to "man" would not work. you can go to history and see the comment form the woman who started much of it, saying something like "trying to start something here" and since then, it is like this.
breppp 1y ago
Today, with infinite information you can always find a source no matter how low quality and place it in equal setting with a high quality source. Then it is suddenly "However" If someone challenges you, you have infinite time due to obsession or being paid. You can then quote a barrage of wikipedia rules until the other side submits. If whatever side of the "truth" has a time advantage, they will usually win. That's very common on topics that attract the obsessed, and the end result does not usually correlate with reality
lif 1y ago
Hmm. Anecdotal, however most folks I have spoken with, who don't agree on much at all, do agree that they no longer have a lot of faith in most of those so-called reliable/reputable sources. Hence also not in wikipedia. Personally, I have seen many articles, esp. of individuals who just before had become publicly visible, re-written drastically enough to cast serious doubt on the objectivity of Wikipedia. It would appear as a society you can have either foster trust (we may have forgotten how to do this?) or feed a bloated police/surveillance/intel state, but not both? Am curious about others experiences with these matters!

jmclnx 1y ago

Yes, I am sure what you say is true, but eventually the article(s) in question will be corrected, or tagged in some manner. But just look at what Trump is doing to the Smithsonian, one example is turning US Slavery History into something even all slaves loved. Or erasing Trump's 2 Impeachments. You and everyone with even a little bit of smarts knows the articles that will be first targeted is US Slavery History and Trump's multiple Impeachments.

OsrsNeedsf2P 1y ago
Even if whitehouse.gov rewrites history, or forces reputable outlets to make "corrections", Wikipedia articles can (and do) reference archives.

serain 1y ago

this is false. all you have to do is see a mildly controversial article like "woman". it is all opinionated. and citing sources to add similar content to "man" would not work. you can go to history and see the comment form the woman who started much of it, saying something like "trying to start something here" and since then, it is like this.

breppp 1y ago

Today, with infinite information you can always find a source no matter how low quality and place it in equal setting with a high quality source. Then it is suddenly "However" If someone challenges you, you have infinite time due to obsession or being paid. You can then quote a barrage of wikipedia rules until the other side submits. If whatever side of the "truth" has a time advantage, they will usually win. That's very common on topics that attract the obsessed, and the end result does not usually correlate with reality

lif 1y ago

Hmm. Anecdotal, however most folks I have spoken with, who don't agree on much at all, do agree that they no longer have a lot of faith in most of those so-called reliable/reputable sources. Hence also not in wikipedia. Personally, I have seen many articles, esp. of individuals who just before had become publicly visible, re-written drastically enough to cast serious doubt on the objectivity of Wikipedia. It would appear as a society you can have either foster trust (we may have forgotten how to do this?) or feed a bloated police/surveillance/intel state, but not both? Am curious about others experiences with these matters!