5 ms·
Are there actual good examples showing errors of fact on Wikipedia that are verifiably incorrect, that demonstrate how it is "captured"?
by ryandrake 8mo ago
Are there actual good examples showing errors of fact on Wikipedia that are verifiably incorrect, that demonstrate how it is "captured"?
- gowld 8mo agoIt's not errors of fact, it's errors of omitted facts.
- ibero 8mo agoAre there actual good examples showing errors of omitted facts on Wikipedia that are verifiably correct, that demonstrate how it is "captured"?
- decimalenough 8mo ago[flagged]
- Auracle 8mo ago[flagged]
- epgui 8mo agoHave you considered the possibility that your opinion is just not representative of the scientific consensus?
- charcircuit 8mo agoWikipedia does not care about scientific consensus. It just summarizes "reliable" secondary sources.
- epgui 8mo agoWrong in two different ways: - this tends to approximate consensus. - Wikipedia does care, and has a policy on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scientific_consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scientific_consensus
- charcircuit 8mo ago>and has a policy on this Look at the top of that page. >This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.
- epgui 8mo agoThat’s like arguing that “forming a queue at the store” is not an official policy. The document outlines normative / prescriptive approaches that are followed in practice.
- Auracle 8mo agoI asked ChatGPT on whether or not it was the "scientific consensus." "Anonymous surveys of intelligence experts reveal division: a 2016 survey found that about 49% attributed 50% or more of the Black-White gap to genetics, while over 80% attributed at least 20%; an earlier 1980s survey showed similar splits. These views are more common in private or anonymous contexts, contrasting with public statements from bodies like the APA that find no support for genetic explanations." Hm, sure seems like Wikipedia should probably have a more balanced, nuanced discussion considering the experts are split at least 50/50.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo agoThe "scientific consensus" the parent comment mentioned is referring to published studies, with data to back up their conclusions. The numbers you are citing seem to be from an opinion poll. Where did any of the 49% surveyed get the idea that "50% or more of the Black-White gap" can be "attributed" to genetics? What is their methodology for the attribution? Bringing up an opinion poll as a counterpoint makes it read like you're arguing that Wikipedia should focus less on fact and more on opinion. Of course, you're free to think what you wish, but I suspect that's where most disagree.
- Auracle 8mo agoWe don't really have "intelligence genes" mapped out, if they exist. Therefore, something like this, from Wikipedia: "Genetics do not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial or ethnic groups" is effectively a lie. Genetics certainly don't explain all the differences in IQ. They very well might not explain the majority of the the difference. However, considering we know that intelligence is quite heritable along with various adoption and twin studies that have happened throughout the decades (along with simple freaking logic), we have a pretty good idea that it explains at least some of the difference. That "opinion poll," while not super-great because only some elected to reply, was a poll of experts in the fields that study this stuff, not random people. A real unbiased article would mention that (and perhaps whatever counterarguments there are), not straight up do the encyclopedia equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "nah uh I can't hear you."
- lobf 8mo ago>As you can see, Wikipedia is very dismissive to the point of effectively lying. Did I miss where you presented evidence that wikipedia is wrong? You seem to be taking an assumption you carry (race is related to IQ) and assuming everyone believes it's true as well, thus wikipedia is lying.
- Auracle 8mo agoThere have been many, many studies that show that "race" is related to IQ. A true, unbiased article would show that as well as any well-founded criticisms of it.
- lobf 8mo agoCan you cite them then?
- Auracle 8mo agoRoth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 297–330. Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 235–294. Neisser, U., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. (APA Task Force report). American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo agoThe Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was methodologically flawed. “Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements.” Reframed, the study seemed to find (a) black kids are adopted less readily and (b) the longer a kid spends in the foster system, the lower their IQ at 17. (There is also limited controlling for epigenetic factors because we didn’t understand those well in the 1970s and 80s.) Based on how new human cognition is, and genetically similar human races are, it would be somewhat groundbreaking to find an emergent complex trait like IQ to map to social constructs like race, particularly ones as broad as American white and black. (There is more genetic diversity in single African tribes than in some small European countries. And American whites and blacks are all complex hybridized social categories.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...
- Auracle 8mo ago[flagged]
- tptacek 8mo agoWhat? No you can't. And: it remains perfectly OK to study racial differences in IQ. It's an actively studied topic. In fact, it's studied by at least three major scientific fields (quantitative psychology, behavioral genetics, and molecular genetics). The idea that you can't is a cringe online racist canard borne out of the fact that the studies aren't coming out the way they want them to.
- Auracle 8mo agoDoes it now? Noah Carl would disagree. He was a researcher at Cambridge University that was dismissed after an open letter signed by over 1,400 academics and students accusing him of "racist pseudoscience" for merely arguing that race-IQ research should not be off-limits. James Flynn (of the Flynn effect) has also publicly stated that grants for research clarifying genetic vs. environmental causes of IQ gaps weren't approved because of university fears of public furor.
- AlotOfReading 8mo agoIt seems like the root of your statement is with the existence of "race" as a purely biological classification. Wikipedia correctly notes the consensus position that race is a social construct [0] that's difficult to use accurately when discussing IQ. Grok makes the implicit and incorrect assumption that genetic factors = race, among other issues. [0] https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race
- darkwater 8mo agoI wonder how much longer that link will stay up with the current administration...
- Auracle 8mo agoOk, change it to "what we call race as a proxy for general geographic locations that people's ancestors come from." Which is what we all mean by race, anyways.
- lobf 8mo agoBut then what are you arguing? Geographic location determines IQ? (An inherently flawed measurement itself)
- Auracle 8mo agoI'm not arguing anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is biased. Though I will say it's beyond argument that geographic ancestry has an effect on IQ on a statistical group level (the reasons for this are what's debated), and that IQ is the best measurement of G that we have.
- lobf 8mo agoOkay but you need to… actually present these arguments. Right now you’re stating your position and then affirming it as fact and expecting everyone to trust you.
- erxam 8mo ago[flagged]
- servo_sausage 8mo agoI find it more surprising that the common understanding has shifted away from "wikis are crap for anything new or political". As soon as there is a plausible agenda for selecting a narrative the way Wikipedia works we should be sceptical. For recent examples, everything to do with Biden and family, and Gamergate. These pages are still full of discussion; and what's written is more ideological than factual. You can follow these pages to see how an in-group selects a narrative. And these topics are not nearly as controversial as race, feminism, or transgender topics.
- ryandrake 8mo agoOK, is there a specific example on either the Biden or Gamergate page that is factually incorrect? Or are you saying the entire pages are false?
- andoando 8mo agoWhich facts are represented is equally important as being factual though. Brian hit Jim can be a fact. But if you emit "Jim murdered Brians whole family", its a disortation of truth
- scarmig 8mo agoWiki's Gamergate opening paragraph: > Gamergate or GamerGate (GG) was a loosely organized misogynistic online harassment campaign motivated by a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture. It was conducted using the hashtag "#Gamergate" primarily in 2014 and 2015. Gamergate targeted women in the video game industry, most notably feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian and video game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu. Grokipedia's: > Gamergate was a grassroots online movement that emerged in August 2014, primarily focused on exposing conflicts of interest and lack of transparency in video game journalism, initiated by a blog post detailing the romantic involvement of indie developer Zoë Quinn with journalists who covered her work without disclosure. The controversy began when Eron Gjoni, Quinn's ex-boyfriend, published "The Zoe Post," accusing her of infidelity with multiple individuals, including Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson, whose article on Quinn's game Depression Quest omitted any mention of their prior personal contact. This revelation highlighted broader patterns of undisclosed relationships and coordinated industry practices, such as private mailing lists among journalists, fueling demands for ethical reforms like mandatory disclosure policies. I don't care about "Gamergate" and never use Grokipedia, but Wiki definitely has a stronger slant: it's as if an article about Black Lives Matter started with a statement that it was a campaign meant to scam people to pay for mansions for leadership.
- arjie 8mo agoI’d say Wikipedia definitely has a strong “woke” bent to it. Either in the language or the choice of what facts to show. Here’s an example I deleted that had been there for quite a while https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvadoran_gang_crackdown&diff=prev&oldid=1274052602 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvadoran_gang_c... I really like Wikipedia, though, and I think over time we will get around to fixing it up.
- klausa 8mo agoWhy did you feel this passage was worth deleting?
- arjie 8mo agoAnyone familiar with Wikipedia etiquette knows how to find the answer to this question. Rather than getting into an argument here about a subject there, I'd prefer you familiarize yourself with the norms of that community, and if you already have or are experienced with them, then you know where to discuss the subject guided by those norms.
- scared_together 8mo agoBut you’re responding to a comment here, not there. So why not abide by the norms that prevail here?
- arjie 8mo agoMy experience is that we end up debating the norms because this forum has different views than Wikipedia itself. That’s interesting to some but not to me so I’m opting out. In addition, the answer to the question is already available so I want any question asker to put in a little bit of effort and if they’re not going to do that then I’m not really interested in talking to them since I prefer peer interactions to tutorials.
- calqacon 8mo agoHow about Gabrowski et al.: "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust", about the outsize influence of certain coordinated Polish editors on the Wikipedia articles about Poland and the Holocaust? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/25785648.2023.2... Quote from the conclusion: > This essay has shown that in the last decade, a handful of editors have been steering Wikipedia’s narrative on Holocaust history away from sound, evidence-driven research, toward a skewed version of events touted by right-wing Polish groups. Wikipedia’s articles on Jewish topics, especially on Polish–Jewish history before, during, and after World War II, contain and bolster harmful stereotypes and fallacies. Our study provides numerous examples, but many more exist. We have shown how the distortionist editors add false content and use unreliable sources or misrepresent legitimate ones. For a more recent paper, "Disinformation as a tool for digital political activism: Croatian Wikipedia and the case for critical information literacy" by Car et al. says that: > The Hr.WP [Croatian Wikipedia] case exemplifies disinformation not only as content manipulation, but also as process manipulation weaponising neutrality and verifiability policies to suppress dissent and enforce a single ideological position. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2025-0020 https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2025-0020
- ethbr1 8mo agoIf the debate here is that sustained ethno-political campaigns are slightly shifting Wikipedia over time in a way that requires an academic paper to detect... Vs. What Elon is doing... Then we're not even comparing fruits to fruits.