3 ms·
The best thing wikimedia can do is make sure Wikipedia is unbiased as possible in sensitive topics - not just really on random online editors to notice things b
by throwaway198846 1y ago
The best thing wikimedia can do is make sure Wikipedia is unbiased as possible in sensitive topics - not just really on random online editors to notice things but to actually actively check for biases and omissions.
- sebzim4500 1y agoI'm not sure if moving from the biases of wikipedia editors to the biases of wikipedia staff would necessarily be a positive
- IshKebab 1y agoIt depends. Often staff are a lot more even handed than volunteer editors because you have to be a bit weird and love moderating to do it voluntarily, but it's pretty normal to do it as a job. StackOverflow has this problem (or had, before it died) - the mods were hugely invested in closing questions for basically any reason, so normal users ended up hating it and the company couldn't make any changes to improve things because whenever they tried the mods revolted. It's not as much of an issue with Wikipedia because most Wikipedia users aren't actually editing articles and running into any moderation issues.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- spwa4 1y agoThen take a really sensitive topic and check it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide Ask yourself how neutral this is, and it of course isn't neutral at all by Wikipedia standards (obviously both parties don't agree, and one party's viewpoint is not represented ... at all, which is normally a hard no on wikipedia) and then look at the discussion page, to see it become 100x worse, and to see openly racist viewpoints that I'm surprised they allow even on discussion pages. What's especially troublesome is that one side (the one who's viewpoint is the only represented on the page) is totally opposed to even discussing the existence of the other side.