6 ms·

I would say this is all we really should reasonably expect from our knowledge consensus systems. In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our b

I would say this is all we really should reasonably expect from our knowledge consensus systems. In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our best everyday and continue to try improving. It’s a bit hard for me to imagine something better (in practice). It’s easy to want more or feel like reality doesn’t live up to one’s idealism. But we live here and now in the messiness of the present. Viva la Wikipedia!

abnercoimbre 1y ago
Indeed, Wikipedia really is worth celebrating. While I sympathize with the GP, we should avoid devolving into purity spirals or we'll never have moments of joy.
- sshine 1y ago
  It’s possible to both criticise Wikipedia and celebrate it.
  - squigz 1y ago
    We don't always have to do both at once though. Sometimes we can just enjoy things.
  - xeromal 1y ago
    You know when you're proud of something and you tell it to someone and they always find something to nitpick while also saying good job. That's what this feels like. It's very unnecessary. Time and a place
    - sshine 1y ago
      That’s one example, but I mean less personal. Wikipedia isn’t a person. For example: I’m a big fan of Wikipedia. I spent countless hours writing articles in my early twenties. I stopped because the environment got more hostile as the site grew in popularity. I think that might have been necessary to address the influx of drive-by editing, but it still meant I stopped enjoying being a contributor. I don’t appreciate the constant asking for money — as far as I understand, they’re well off without donations. There. I think the misconception here is that criticism has to be mean and personal. As someone who celebrates the project’s ideals, giving criticism is an act of love.
      - chris_wot 1y ago
        You think that's bad? I got permanently banned and I started many important things on Wikipedia - like the admins noticeboard, a number of Australia communities, and the [citation needed]. I wrote dozens of articles about Australian women - none of them gave a shit and so I'm not able to write about them any more. They are, by and large, a bunch of horrible bullies and losers - many Wikipedians don't actually care about articles creation or actual content, they fiddle about with URL fixes and categorisation. There was one horrible human being called BrownHairedGirl who did all these things and almost destroyed the place before they got indefinitely banned also.
        rkomorn 1y ago
        > and the [citation needed] Citation needed.
        chris_wot 1y ago
        You could look at the history.
        ForOldHack 1y ago
        You have been trolled by Wikipedia troll bot(tm). - there are hundreds of thousands of them - the hypnotized never lie.
        chris_wot 1y ago
        If you say so.
        throwaway2037 1y ago
        Why did you get permanently banned? And what stops you from creating a new account?
        amiga386 1y ago
        > Why did you get permanently banned. Ta bu shi da yu created the citation needed template: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation_needed&oldid=17662960 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation... (I remember that account name from Kuro5hin. Much respect!) He edited under several accounts, all of which are permabanned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aussie_Article_Writer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aussie_Article_Writer Why? Because he'd earned an interaction ban (IBAN) from engaging with BrownHairedGirl, and he breached the ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Aussie+Article+Writer https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=... Whatever he said, it's been fully scrubbed, but it appears to have been commenting on BrownHairedGirl's not-yet-submitted Request for Adminship: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1039021442#Piotrus'_concerns_about_User:BrownHairedGirl https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1039021442#Piotrus... How'd he get the interaction ban? Because another account of his and BrownHairedGirl were squabbling, and the admins have working eyes and brains, they could see he was doing the instigating: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=980273295#Proposal:_One-way_IBAN_on_Chris.sherlock_concerning_BrownHairedGirl https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=980273295#Proposa... You're not meant to wind up or troll your fellow Wikipedians, even if they are combative dickheads who need taking down a peg. What was the beef? That he was creating small subcategories for each suburb of Brisbane, and BrownHairedGirl goes off her nut at small categories. BrownHairedGirl was eventually taken out by being needlessly combative about - of all things - Wikipedia's "small categories" policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat_dispute/Preliminary_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... > what stops you from creating a new account? Wikipedians inevitably go back to their old stomping grounds, use their normal tone in discussions, repeat their same old habits and basically don't change. When they do that, they're very recognisable to the people they already spent 20 years interacting with. They out themselves as a sockpuppet of the original banned user, and they get banned again.
  - knowitnone2 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- bawolff 1y ago
  FWIW, i don't think of my comment as a criticism, Wikipedia is beautiful because of what it is. We should celebrate it as it is. In my view it is very much the journey towards an unatainable goal that makes Wikipedia so inspiring. The Wikipedian's themselves admit it is a work in progress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_work_... I think that's part of what makes Wikipedia beautiful. In some ways it makes me think of the religious monolouge from the tv show babylon5 https://youtu.be/JjnpTcvGvts?si=6jdzDxVXOt--LNHC https://youtu.be/JjnpTcvGvts?si=6jdzDxVXOt--LNHC
visarga 1y ago
> In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our best everyday and continue to try improving. Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it. But philosophers still talk about Truth, they didn't get the message. As long as we are using leaky abstractions - which means all the time - we can't capture Truth. There is no view from nowhere.
- glenstein 1y ago
  I understand the spirit of what you're saying, but I think this phrasing can be abused by burn-it-all-down skeptics, and I would prefer to say the notion of forward iteration depends on there being some such real thing as truth. The "relativity of wrong" essay by Isaac Asimov, recently upvoted on HN, captures the idea pretty well imo.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it. That’s not accurate. Science is orthogonal to belief in ultimate truth, and scientists have very diverse opinions on that point. Science is about finding more useful models to predict future observations, but whether and how that relates to truth is a question outside of the domain of science.
- stogot 1y ago
  That’s a bad take. Science does seek Truth. Take physics’ equations and the universal constants for example. Don’t act like there’s not objective, truthful realities that are undiscovered. Social “sciences”, humanities, and psychology maybe different
- postmodern99 1y ago
  > Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it. > it What is "it", if not truth?
  - b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
    The irony lol.
thaumasiotes 1y ago
> I would say this is all we really should reasonably expect from our knowledge consensus systems. Compare this text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_configuration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_configuration : >> The most common labeling method uses the descriptors R or S and is based on the Cahn–Ingold–Prelog priority rules. R and S refer to rectus and sinister, Latin for right and left, respectively.[2] This claim is actually repeated further down in the article. The fact that it is false was noted on the talk page seven years ago, but this seems to bother no one. After all, there's a citation. I think we can reasonably expect more. Wikipedia reliably fails at very, very easy problems of "knowledge consensus".
- jasonlotito 1y ago
  > The fact that it is false was noted on the talk page seven years ago, but this seems to bother no one. From the talk page: "This is inaccurate, as the linked Wikitionary page defines rectus as straight, not right" From the Wiktionary page referenced: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rectus https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rectus - led straight along, drawn in a straight line, straight, upright. - (in general) right, correct, proper, appropriate, befitting. - (in particular) morally right, correct, lawful, just, virtuous, noble, good, proper, honest. The rest of talk page comment: "I was told during my education that the rectus-right definition was used by Robert Sidney Cahn as an excuse to use his own initials, although I cannot find a source to back that up." So, the wiktionary page literally defines it as right, and we see that it's not about direction but about being correct or incorrect. And then the follow up has literally no source to back it up. So... "I think we can reasonably expect more." The first claim is debunked. The second claim has nothing to back it up. Is your proposal then to accept lies and claims without evidence?
  - Idesmi 1y ago
    The first claim is correct, as the topic was direction, not correctness.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    Ok, so you also failed at a very, very easy problem, but you're proud of that fact? Question: in the phrase "right and left", what does right mean?

abnercoimbre 1y ago

Indeed, Wikipedia really is worth celebrating. While I sympathize with the GP, we should avoid devolving into purity spirals or we'll never have moments of joy.

sshine 1y ago
It’s possible to both criticise Wikipedia and celebrate it.
- squigz 1y ago
  We don't always have to do both at once though. Sometimes we can just enjoy things.
- xeromal 1y ago
  You know when you're proud of something and you tell it to someone and they always find something to nitpick while also saying good job. That's what this feels like. It's very unnecessary. Time and a place
  - sshine 1y ago
    That’s one example, but I mean less personal. Wikipedia isn’t a person. For example: I’m a big fan of Wikipedia. I spent countless hours writing articles in my early twenties. I stopped because the environment got more hostile as the site grew in popularity. I think that might have been necessary to address the influx of drive-by editing, but it still meant I stopped enjoying being a contributor. I don’t appreciate the constant asking for money — as far as I understand, they’re well off without donations. There. I think the misconception here is that criticism has to be mean and personal. As someone who celebrates the project’s ideals, giving criticism is an act of love.
    - chris_wot 1y ago
      You think that's bad? I got permanently banned and I started many important things on Wikipedia - like the admins noticeboard, a number of Australia communities, and the [citation needed]. I wrote dozens of articles about Australian women - none of them gave a shit and so I'm not able to write about them any more. They are, by and large, a bunch of horrible bullies and losers - many Wikipedians don't actually care about articles creation or actual content, they fiddle about with URL fixes and categorisation. There was one horrible human being called BrownHairedGirl who did all these things and almost destroyed the place before they got indefinitely banned also.
      - rkomorn 1y ago
        > and the [citation needed] Citation needed.
        chris_wot 1y ago
        You could look at the history.
        ForOldHack 1y ago
        You have been trolled by Wikipedia troll bot(tm). - there are hundreds of thousands of them - the hypnotized never lie.
        chris_wot 1y ago
        If you say so.
      - throwaway2037 1y ago
        Why did you get permanently banned? And what stops you from creating a new account?
        amiga386 1y ago
        > Why did you get permanently banned. Ta bu shi da yu created the citation needed template: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation_needed&oldid=17662960 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation... (I remember that account name from Kuro5hin. Much respect!) He edited under several accounts, all of which are permabanned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aussie_Article_Writer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aussie_Article_Writer Why? Because he'd earned an interaction ban (IBAN) from engaging with BrownHairedGirl, and he breached the ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Aussie+Article+Writer https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=... Whatever he said, it's been fully scrubbed, but it appears to have been commenting on BrownHairedGirl's not-yet-submitted Request for Adminship: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1039021442#Piotrus'_concerns_about_User:BrownHairedGirl https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1039021442#Piotrus... How'd he get the interaction ban? Because another account of his and BrownHairedGirl were squabbling, and the admins have working eyes and brains, they could see he was doing the instigating: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=980273295#Proposal:_One-way_IBAN_on_Chris.sherlock_concerning_BrownHairedGirl https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=980273295#Proposa... You're not meant to wind up or troll your fellow Wikipedians, even if they are combative dickheads who need taking down a peg. What was the beef? That he was creating small subcategories for each suburb of Brisbane, and BrownHairedGirl goes off her nut at small categories. BrownHairedGirl was eventually taken out by being needlessly combative about - of all things - Wikipedia's "small categories" policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat_dispute/Preliminary_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... > what stops you from creating a new account? Wikipedians inevitably go back to their old stomping grounds, use their normal tone in discussions, repeat their same old habits and basically don't change. When they do that, they're very recognisable to the people they already spent 20 years interacting with. They out themselves as a sockpuppet of the original banned user, and they get banned again.
- knowitnone2 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
bawolff 1y ago
FWIW, i don't think of my comment as a criticism, Wikipedia is beautiful because of what it is. We should celebrate it as it is. In my view it is very much the journey towards an unatainable goal that makes Wikipedia so inspiring. The Wikipedian's themselves admit it is a work in progress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_work_... I think that's part of what makes Wikipedia beautiful. In some ways it makes me think of the religious monolouge from the tv show babylon5 https://youtu.be/JjnpTcvGvts?si=6jdzDxVXOt--LNHC https://youtu.be/JjnpTcvGvts?si=6jdzDxVXOt--LNHC

visarga 1y ago

> In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our best everyday and continue to try improving. Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it. But philosophers still talk about Truth, they didn't get the message. As long as we are using leaky abstractions - which means all the time - we can't capture Truth. There is no view from nowhere.

glenstein 1y ago
I understand the spirit of what you're saying, but I think this phrasing can be abused by burn-it-all-down skeptics, and I would prefer to say the notion of forward iteration depends on there being some such real thing as truth. The "relativity of wrong" essay by Isaac Asimov, recently upvoted on HN, captures the idea pretty well imo.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it. That’s not accurate. Science is orthogonal to belief in ultimate truth, and scientists have very diverse opinions on that point. Science is about finding more useful models to predict future observations, but whether and how that relates to truth is a question outside of the domain of science.
stogot 1y ago
That’s a bad take. Science does seek Truth. Take physics’ equations and the universal constants for example. Don’t act like there’s not objective, truthful realities that are undiscovered. Social “sciences”, humanities, and psychology maybe different
postmodern99 1y ago
> Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it. > it What is "it", if not truth?
- b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
  The irony lol.

thaumasiotes 1y ago

> I would say this is all we really should reasonably expect from our knowledge consensus systems. Compare this text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_configuration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_configuration : >> The most common labeling method uses the descriptors R or S and is based on the Cahn–Ingold–Prelog priority rules. R and S refer to rectus and sinister, Latin for right and left, respectively.[2] This claim is actually repeated further down in the article. The fact that it is false was noted on the talk page seven years ago, but this seems to bother no one. After all, there's a citation. I think we can reasonably expect more. Wikipedia reliably fails at very, very easy problems of "knowledge consensus".

jasonlotito 1y ago
> The fact that it is false was noted on the talk page seven years ago, but this seems to bother no one. From the talk page: "This is inaccurate, as the linked Wikitionary page defines rectus as straight, not right" From the Wiktionary page referenced: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rectus https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rectus - led straight along, drawn in a straight line, straight, upright. - (in general) right, correct, proper, appropriate, befitting. - (in particular) morally right, correct, lawful, just, virtuous, noble, good, proper, honest. The rest of talk page comment: "I was told during my education that the rectus-right definition was used by Robert Sidney Cahn as an excuse to use his own initials, although I cannot find a source to back that up." So, the wiktionary page literally defines it as right, and we see that it's not about direction but about being correct or incorrect. And then the follow up has literally no source to back it up. So... "I think we can reasonably expect more." The first claim is debunked. The second claim has nothing to back it up. Is your proposal then to accept lies and claims without evidence?
- Idesmi 1y ago
  The first claim is correct, as the topic was direction, not correctness.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  Ok, so you also failed at a very, very easy problem, but you're proud of that fact? Question: in the phrase "right and left", what does right mean?