4 ms·

For example, the page on Adult neurogenesis had an overreliance on early and limited evidence in 2010s with lots of editing wars occurring by academics. Then it

For example, the page on Adult neurogenesis had an overreliance on early and limited evidence in 2010s with lots of editing wars occurring by academics. Then it got shifted to "controversial" which is better but the process for dealing with new scientific results is not ideal.

paulhebert 1y ago
Thanks for responding with an example! I’m not very familiar with that topic. What were the biases that affected its coverage on Wikipedia?
- physarum_salad 1y ago
  Academics with diverging views just started editing wikipedia to suit their views and the whole thing was very preliminary and not accurate for a long time. Then it was bailed into a "controversial" section. I intentionally picked a mild example lol.
  - paulhebert 1y ago
    Thanks, that’s helpful! What would your ideal outcome be in a situation like that where there is a scientific controversy?
    - physarum_salad 1y ago
      We should have access to a Borges/Thomas Pynchon style dictionary of many possible paths to information. That kind of thinking should be encouraged. It can be confusing and controversial. - I would avoid giving the impression that a simplified narrative is established (unless it won a nobel or is really beyond any reasonable doubt). - End the use of "controversy" sections where it is used to minimise the impact of perfectly acceptable science. This is clearly used as a tactic in certain instances to minimise results. - Allow for mixed expert, AI, conventional editing. There is nothing wrong or elitist with including edited articles by academic experts as cut outs of a particular topic. Almost like if scholarpedia and wikipedia were merged. - Try to combat omission biases. There are some pretty wild ones on wikipedia. - New results should be handled properly in terms of editing and language. - Reproduce multiple versions of the same text to show how it would be different if certain hypothesis/experimental results were valid. This is easy to do if using LLMs.

paulhebert 1y ago

Thanks for responding with an example! I’m not very familiar with that topic. What were the biases that affected its coverage on Wikipedia?

physarum_salad 1y ago
Academics with diverging views just started editing wikipedia to suit their views and the whole thing was very preliminary and not accurate for a long time. Then it was bailed into a "controversial" section. I intentionally picked a mild example lol.
- paulhebert 1y ago
  Thanks, that’s helpful! What would your ideal outcome be in a situation like that where there is a scientific controversy?
  - physarum_salad 1y ago
    We should have access to a Borges/Thomas Pynchon style dictionary of many possible paths to information. That kind of thinking should be encouraged. It can be confusing and controversial. - I would avoid giving the impression that a simplified narrative is established (unless it won a nobel or is really beyond any reasonable doubt). - End the use of "controversy" sections where it is used to minimise the impact of perfectly acceptable science. This is clearly used as a tactic in certain instances to minimise results. - Allow for mixed expert, AI, conventional editing. There is nothing wrong or elitist with including edited articles by academic experts as cut outs of a particular topic. Almost like if scholarpedia and wikipedia were merged. - Try to combat omission biases. There are some pretty wild ones on wikipedia. - New results should be handled properly in terms of editing and language. - Reproduce multiple versions of the same text to show how it would be different if certain hypothesis/experimental results were valid. This is easy to do if using LLMs.