4 ms·

Wikipedia’s strategy is to offload the risk of wrong information to sources which can absorb the hit rather than have it reflected back. It’s “safer” for Wikipe

by close04 3mo ago

Wikipedia’s strategy is to offload the risk of wrong information to sources which can absorb the hit rather than have it reflected back. It’s “safer” for Wikipedia even to knowingly publish inaccuracies or misinformation from a reputable source than the truth from an unknown source. A lie from a reputable source is unavoidable, a lie from an unknown source is unforgivable.

SanjayMehta 3mo ago
[flagged]
- DiogenesKynikos 3mo ago
  I tried looking for reliable secondary sources that discuss the Odin programming language. I couldn't find any. That's not Wikipedia's fault. It is a bit weird that people are insisting that Odin is such a big deal that it must have a Wikipedia page, but apparently no tech website of note has ever mentioned it.
  - fmajid 3mo ago
    It's funny. Just last week I was trying to figure out what this ODIN thing is, and naturally searched Wikipedia, and found nothing. I then did a web search, and found nothing particularly illuminating, and gave up trying to figure out what it is and just added a filtering rule to filter out any further mention of Odin in my RSS feed reader.
  - dismalaf 3mo ago
    > tech website of note Does anyone care about "tech websites"? Like what, one of those weird websites that thinks they're a newspaper whose revenue collapsed 10 years ago so they only publish clickbait no one reads? Does anyone actually get tech news, especially about programming languages, from a space that's not X, HN, YouTube, GitHub, Codeberg or a user group?
    - DiogenesKynikos 3mo ago
      Do you want Wikipedia editors to start citing YouTube videos? I'll tell you what will happen if sourcing standards are loosened in that way. You'll get tons of editors arguing, "So and so said this at 21:45 in this podcast." And then someone else will say, "But he said this other thing that contradicts that at 22:30." And then a third editor will come along and say the person was just joking. The signal-to-noise in the sources will go way down, and you'll have editors acting like detectives and investigative journalists with a mass primary sources. It will be a mess, and it won't work. Those "weird websites" have a reputation one can track. One can look at whether they have a history of correcting errors, citing sources correctly, etc. That's why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources with a history of reliability. It's a simple rule that works for a website with tons of anonymous editors. And guess what? There are tons of secondary sources that cover every major programming language. It looks like Odin is highly niche, which is why it has no secondary sourcing. Maybe it doesn't need a Wikipedia article.
      - dismalaf 3mo ago
        > Those "weird websites" have a reputation one can track. Do they? I mean, I don't track them. But as an example, let's use CBC. They've published nearly a redaction per day on their stories... https://www.cbc.ca/news/corrections-clarifications-1.5893564 https://www.cbc.ca/news/corrections-clarifications-1.5893564 They're a government run, public broadcaster and they're this poor... But they're an acceptable Wikipedia source. Meanwhile, someone like the Primeagen has 1.15 million followers and has used Odin. That's not notable? JangaFX products have been used by creators that cumulatively have millions of subscribers, on top of a website that says they use Odin, on top of the CEO and others X accounts, but that's not enough to convince people JangaFX is a real company with real products? Remember, CNN and all the "trusted" news outlets also have YouTube accounts.
        DiogenesKynikos 3mo ago
        Publishing retractions is a sign of reliability. Wikipedia is actually more concerned about sources that don't publish retractions. If Odin is so notable, why haven't any of the normal tech publications ever mentioned it? One company using it does not necessarily make it notable. > Remember, CNN and all the "trusted" news outlets also have YouTube accounts. And those YouTube accounts are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. In fact, basically only CNN's published articles are considered reliable.
DiogenesKynikos 3mo ago
It's also that letting editors argue based on their own original research would be a recipe for chaos. "Use reliable secondary sources" is a simple rule that limits the scope for possible conflict and chaos. For an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that's very important.

by close04 3mo ago

SanjayMehta 3mo ago

[flagged]

DiogenesKynikos 3mo ago
I tried looking for reliable secondary sources that discuss the Odin programming language. I couldn't find any. That's not Wikipedia's fault. It is a bit weird that people are insisting that Odin is such a big deal that it must have a Wikipedia page, but apparently no tech website of note has ever mentioned it.
- fmajid 3mo ago
  It's funny. Just last week I was trying to figure out what this ODIN thing is, and naturally searched Wikipedia, and found nothing. I then did a web search, and found nothing particularly illuminating, and gave up trying to figure out what it is and just added a filtering rule to filter out any further mention of Odin in my RSS feed reader.
- dismalaf 3mo ago
  > tech website of note Does anyone care about "tech websites"? Like what, one of those weird websites that thinks they're a newspaper whose revenue collapsed 10 years ago so they only publish clickbait no one reads? Does anyone actually get tech news, especially about programming languages, from a space that's not X, HN, YouTube, GitHub, Codeberg or a user group?
  - DiogenesKynikos 3mo ago
    Do you want Wikipedia editors to start citing YouTube videos? I'll tell you what will happen if sourcing standards are loosened in that way. You'll get tons of editors arguing, "So and so said this at 21:45 in this podcast." And then someone else will say, "But he said this other thing that contradicts that at 22:30." And then a third editor will come along and say the person was just joking. The signal-to-noise in the sources will go way down, and you'll have editors acting like detectives and investigative journalists with a mass primary sources. It will be a mess, and it won't work. Those "weird websites" have a reputation one can track. One can look at whether they have a history of correcting errors, citing sources correctly, etc. That's why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources with a history of reliability. It's a simple rule that works for a website with tons of anonymous editors. And guess what? There are tons of secondary sources that cover every major programming language. It looks like Odin is highly niche, which is why it has no secondary sourcing. Maybe it doesn't need a Wikipedia article.
    - dismalaf 3mo ago
      > Those "weird websites" have a reputation one can track. Do they? I mean, I don't track them. But as an example, let's use CBC. They've published nearly a redaction per day on their stories... https://www.cbc.ca/news/corrections-clarifications-1.5893564 https://www.cbc.ca/news/corrections-clarifications-1.5893564 They're a government run, public broadcaster and they're this poor... But they're an acceptable Wikipedia source. Meanwhile, someone like the Primeagen has 1.15 million followers and has used Odin. That's not notable? JangaFX products have been used by creators that cumulatively have millions of subscribers, on top of a website that says they use Odin, on top of the CEO and others X accounts, but that's not enough to convince people JangaFX is a real company with real products? Remember, CNN and all the "trusted" news outlets also have YouTube accounts.
      - DiogenesKynikos 3mo ago
        Publishing retractions is a sign of reliability. Wikipedia is actually more concerned about sources that don't publish retractions. If Odin is so notable, why haven't any of the normal tech publications ever mentioned it? One company using it does not necessarily make it notable. > Remember, CNN and all the "trusted" news outlets also have YouTube accounts. And those YouTube accounts are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. In fact, basically only CNN's published articles are considered reliable.

DiogenesKynikos 3mo ago

It's also that letting editors argue based on their own original research would be a recipe for chaos. "Use reliable secondary sources" is a simple rule that limits the scope for possible conflict and chaos. For an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that's very important.