5 ms·

Jimmy Wales trusts the process

32 points by saikatsg 10mo ago

nephihaha 10mo ago
Wikipedia is not what it claims to be. It is signed up to the SDGs which are a top down UN directive rather than a truly grassroots programme. A lot of Wikipedia is a joke. The most glaring problem of all is that most of its labour is unpaid, despite its content being used by commercial ventures such as Amazon.
- jibal 10mo ago
  I think the low quality of the criticisms of Wikipedia speak to its high quality as a source of information.
embedding-shape 10mo ago
> but the encyclopedia’s founder believes that transparency is the key to survival Slightly ironic, given Wales is a co-founder of Wikipedia, not the founder. Probably would have been nice to ensure the article got it correctly, considering the drama that happened around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Co-founder_status_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Co-founder_status_...
- neerd 10mo ago
  Ehhh, I think he’s earned it given one of the “founders” has had basically zero input on anything modern Wikipedia has become.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- akerl_ 10mo ago
  What a weird nit to pick. This doesn't really seem to be an issue in any other usage of a grouped noun? Being a co-founder implies that you (and at least one other person) are both founders.
jdboyd 10mo ago
https://archive.is/UaOak https://archive.is/UaOak
charcircuit 10mo ago
You can only trust wikipedia as much as you can trust the news media. If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you then it's not possible to get a secondary source to fight misinformation or other narritives that one side is pushing.
- alex1138 10mo ago
  Yeah, exactly. Maybe before 2020 I would say Wikipedia is the gold standard (meaning those were my political views/biases, not that I think it got worse after 2020 although it probably did) but I've seen too much in the last few years to trust anything approximating mainstream notions of "misinformation". There's official narrative being enforced
  - greggoB 10mo ago
    > but I've seen too much in the last few years Can you share at least your top 3 examples? Claims of an "official narrative" frankly just sound kookie when made without a shred to back them up.
    - mmooss 10mo ago
      Maybe before November 2024. Now MAGA supporters control CBS News, Fox, and others; and ABC News, the Washington Post, etc. openly comply with their demands.
    - alex1138 10mo ago
      Literally everything to do with covid. I can list "at least 3" right there. Masks don't work, the vaccine has killed people, epidemiologists (credible ones) warned against lockdowns. Wikipedia will tell you otherwise I'm sure There's other things as well I could probably think of but when you have politically motivated actors going on edit wars and the fact Wiki may even be controlled by the intelligence agencies we have a problem (And why does Youtube put Wikipedia entries as official truth under certain videos?)
      - 10mo ago
mmooss 10mo ago
People like Wales have a bizarre blindness to what's happening in our society: > Jimmy Wales: If you look at the Edelman Trust Barometer survey, which has been going since 2000, you’ve seen this steady erosion of trust in journalism and media and business and to some degree in each other. ... > What do you think has gone wrong? > I think there’s a number of things that have gone wrong. The trend actually goes back to before the Edelman data. Some of the things I would point to are the decline of the business model for local journalism. To the extent that the business model for journalism has been very difficult, full stop, you see the rise of low-quality outlets, clickbait headlines, all of that. But also that local piece means people aren’t necessarily getting information that they can verify with their own eyes, and I think that tends to undermine trust. In more recent times, obviously the toxicity of social media hasn’t been helpful. How about a political movement's explicit, extremely aggressive all out assault on social trust, specifically journalism - an 'enemy of the people', target of law enforcement and laws, etc. And how about toxic capitalism's (emphasis on 'toxic', not all capitalism) actually valuing and aggressively embracing complete abandonment and manipulation of trust in order to profit by any means possible (e.g. stereotypical private equity squeezing money out of nursing homes)? What planet to people like Wales live on? They are so used to ducking this issue that they almost can't see it anymore.
- Sebguer 10mo ago
  The planet of wealth.
- bawolff 10mo ago
  Why not both?
  - mmooss 10mo ago
    Who or what do you include in 'both'?
    - bawolff 10mo ago
      The degradation of quality journalism (what jimmy is talking about) lead to political movements attacking social trust (what original poster is talking about)

32 points by saikatsg 10mo ago

Wikipedia is not what it claims to be. It is signed up to the SDGs which are a top down UN directive rather than a truly grassroots programme. A lot of Wikipedia is a joke. The most glaring problem of all is that most of its labour is unpaid, despite its content being used by commercial ventures such as Amazon.

jibal 10mo ago
I think the low quality of the criticisms of Wikipedia speak to its high quality as a source of information.

embedding-shape 10mo ago

> but the encyclopedia’s founder believes that transparency is the key to survival Slightly ironic, given Wales is a co-founder of Wikipedia, not the founder. Probably would have been nice to ensure the article got it correctly, considering the drama that happened around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Co-founder_status_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Co-founder_status_...

neerd 10mo ago
Ehhh, I think he’s earned it given one of the “founders” has had basically zero input on anything modern Wikipedia has become.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
akerl_ 10mo ago
What a weird nit to pick. This doesn't really seem to be an issue in any other usage of a grouped noun? Being a co-founder implies that you (and at least one other person) are both founders.

jdboyd 10mo ago

https://archive.is/UaOak https://archive.is/UaOak

charcircuit 10mo ago

You can only trust wikipedia as much as you can trust the news media. If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you then it's not possible to get a secondary source to fight misinformation or other narritives that one side is pushing.

alex1138 10mo ago
Yeah, exactly. Maybe before 2020 I would say Wikipedia is the gold standard (meaning those were my political views/biases, not that I think it got worse after 2020 although it probably did) but I've seen too much in the last few years to trust anything approximating mainstream notions of "misinformation". There's official narrative being enforced
- greggoB 10mo ago
  > but I've seen too much in the last few years Can you share at least your top 3 examples? Claims of an "official narrative" frankly just sound kookie when made without a shred to back them up.
  - mmooss 10mo ago
    Maybe before November 2024. Now MAGA supporters control CBS News, Fox, and others; and ABC News, the Washington Post, etc. openly comply with their demands.
  - alex1138 10mo ago
    Literally everything to do with covid. I can list "at least 3" right there. Masks don't work, the vaccine has killed people, epidemiologists (credible ones) warned against lockdowns. Wikipedia will tell you otherwise I'm sure There's other things as well I could probably think of but when you have politically motivated actors going on edit wars and the fact Wiki may even be controlled by the intelligence agencies we have a problem (And why does Youtube put Wikipedia entries as official truth under certain videos?)
    - 10mo ago

mmooss 10mo ago

People like Wales have a bizarre blindness to what's happening in our society: > Jimmy Wales: If you look at the Edelman Trust Barometer survey, which has been going since 2000, you’ve seen this steady erosion of trust in journalism and media and business and to some degree in each other. ... > What do you think has gone wrong? > I think there’s a number of things that have gone wrong. The trend actually goes back to before the Edelman data. Some of the things I would point to are the decline of the business model for local journalism. To the extent that the business model for journalism has been very difficult, full stop, you see the rise of low-quality outlets, clickbait headlines, all of that. But also that local piece means people aren’t necessarily getting information that they can verify with their own eyes, and I think that tends to undermine trust. In more recent times, obviously the toxicity of social media hasn’t been helpful. How about a political movement's explicit, extremely aggressive all out assault on social trust, specifically journalism - an 'enemy of the people', target of law enforcement and laws, etc. And how about toxic capitalism's (emphasis on 'toxic', not all capitalism) actually valuing and aggressively embracing complete abandonment and manipulation of trust in order to profit by any means possible (e.g. stereotypical private equity squeezing money out of nursing homes)? What planet to people like Wales live on? They are so used to ducking this issue that they almost can't see it anymore.

Sebguer 10mo ago
The planet of wealth.
bawolff 10mo ago
Why not both?
- mmooss 10mo ago
  Who or what do you include in 'both'?
  - bawolff 10mo ago
    The degradation of quality journalism (what jimmy is talking about) lead to political movements attacking social trust (what original poster is talking about)