4 ms·
> I think it's pretty naive to think that editorialization hasn't happened in some flavor throughout the history of the encyclopedia, as far back as Diderot. E
by derleth 13y ago
> I think it's pretty naive to think that editorialization hasn't happened in some flavor throughout the history of the encyclopedia, as far back as Diderot.
Everyone has a bias. That much is taken for granted, right?
Now, the questions:
Is everyone equally biased?
Can anyone overcome bias?
Are all biases equally severe?
Are all biases bad?
Is it futile to attempt to overcome bias?
How you answer these questions will determine whether you think encyclopedias are even a valid enterprise, let alone your ideas on how to construct one. The point remains, however, that none of these questions are new, and bringing all of them up at once, implicitly or explicitly, every time the topic is discussed does nothing to move anything forwards.
It seems fundamental and exactly the kind of thing we need to get hammered out before anything else can begin, but it's really a pointless waste of time, like arguing about whether the physical world really exists every time you want to decide what to eat.
- javert 13y agoI think that was actually his point. > Everyone has a bias. That much is taken for granted, right? Do I smell a challenge? :) Nobody has perfect knowledge, and many people are motivated in bad ways. But "everyone has a bias" is, I think, a subtle attack on the idea that anyone can actually know anything. Most philosophy of science courses would endorse some version of that view, but I don't. I know that 2+2 is 4, and that's not biased. I know a lot of other things, too, that aren't biased. There are people who will claim that, say, 2+2=4 is just a way for Western imperialists to get their way over others, or even that math is a figment of the imagination without correspondence to the real world (many math professors would defend this), and those people are wrong. Hell, some people would claim that assuming there is a "real world" is biased, but they are wrong, too. I'm not going to prove it here in the comments, though.
- jetru 13y ago>> I know that 2+2 is 4, and that's not biased. I know a lot of other things, too, that aren't biased. 2+2 is actually ... 11. Your bias to the base 10 system has been exposed.
- javert 13y agoI have to give you props, because that's pretty clever. Anyway, assuming base 10 in my notation does not bias the results.
- JamisonM 13y agoI think it is pretty clear that not everyone is equally biased or that every bias is equally bad or good. It does not seem like a useful question unless you plan on engaging in a lengthy exercise it justifying Wikipedia from first-principles or something. I would ask this question instead: Is the editorial environment of Wikipedia specifically a place where the worst biases can flourish? Subtle edits over a long period of time from a malicious actor are one thing, but the same from someone who is simply oblivious to their bias on a set of topics is quite another. If the answer is yes, how in the heck can it be fixed?
- glenra 13y agoThe answer is yes, Wikipedia is specifically a place where the worst biases can flourish. It only takes a couple of cranks to keep the biases in, and there are more than enough cranks around. I don't know that it can be fixed. The good news, though, is that there's enough transparency to in most cases make it clear to the careful observer what's going on. On any politically-sensitive topic, the experienced wikipedia user eventually learns that you need to check the talk page and see what points of view are being deliberately and actively excluded from the main page. Checking the page history helps too - bad pages tend to have a lot of reverts with angry check-in comments.