Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 301 posts

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#251

Post by topranks »

noxer wrote: post #243
windmark wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate with sources for someone who have only read the main stream media about this?

"Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland [...] have agreed to sanctions." This implies that Switzerland neutrality is somehow relevant while in reality it is not. It implies sanctions DESPITE neutrality. https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebers...

I get it - you feel the word “neutrality” should only be used to mean military neutrality - and you’re annoyed that Wikipedia has used a broader definition used by various media outlets.

I think what your arguing here is semantics, as opposed to something that’s “factually incorrect”.

The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will.

It’s a downside of requiring citations to support statements. But probably unavoidable.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#252

Post by topranks »

noxer wrote: post #239
jl6 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you disputing that Switzerland is historically neutral?

No absolutely not. But the Swiss neutrality is a broad concept/principle not a strictly defined set of actions that the gov can or can not do. The sanction against Russia for example are not in conflict with the neutrality principle despite the media reporting pretending that this is somehow "unexpected" or "a first" or "clearly picking a side" or even "ditching neutrality because Russia so bad". This is either the m…

A week before they sanctioned those on the EU list the Swiss government had declined to apply any sanctions, citing Switzerland’s neutrality as the reason.

According to Reuters:

> Switzerland has steered clear of imposing sanctions in a string of crises, including when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Up to now, the exception has been sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council, which it has to implement under international law.

So certainly it seems like they are “taking sides” here more than ever before. Seems like a change in what they consider being neutral to be.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#253

Post by timcederman »

legitster wrote: post #25
legitster wrote: post #10

I'm not sure if I share the same assessment. I am amazed at how robust your typical Wikipedia page is despite the chaos that goes into writing it. Given that it's not possible to make a version of reality that everyone is happy with, I think Wikipedia comes pretty dang close.

As an example, I want to point people to the page I have been spending a lot of time on as of late: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... Is the information on this page perfect? Obviously not. But this single page probably represents the best up-to-date summary of information you will find on the internet. And I can only imagine the thankless work volunteer editors put into making it cohere…

If you check out previous comments from the OP, I think you'll find it's entries like that they're upset about.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#254

Post by topranks »

sdoering wrote: post #38

I think overall the wikipedia model has shown itself to be decently working. But (anecdata) I have my gripes with the way it handles evidence. My SO has a person (died already) in her family with a (relatively) short wikipedia entry. There are factual errors in the article. We know that, because we have original documents showing that the "facts" reportet in the entry are wrong. Due to the fact that the documents can…

This is unfortunate, but what can Wikipedia do.

They can’t allow you upload your own proof, and then have citations on Wikipedia pointing to Wikipedia.

The only way they can really do it is to insist on citations to reliable sources. That sucks when there is nothing true about it out there, but without those rules you could just write anything at all , they need some rules.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#255

Post by contravariant »

formerly_proven wrote: post #46
legitster wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an example, I want to point people to the page I have been spending a lot of time on as of late: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... Is the information on this page perfect? Obviously not. But this single page probably represents the best up-to-date summary of information you will find on the internet. And I can only imagine the thankless work volunteer editors put into making it cohere…

Even more amazingly the invasion article on the Russian wikipedia was really good as well (as of a few days ago).

Did this change or was it a few days ago that you last checked?

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#256

Post by convolvatron »

topranks wrote: post #251
noxer wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland [...] have agreed to sanctions." This implies that Switzerland neutrality is somehow relevant while in reality it is not. It implies sanctions DESPITE neutrality. https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebers...

I get it - you feel the word “neutrality” should only be used to mean military neutrality - and you’re annoyed that Wikipedia has used a broader definition used by various media outlets. I think what your arguing here is semantics, as opposed to something that’s “factually incorrect”. The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will…

the assignment of semantics to a sentence isn't the imposition of some kind of subjective interpretation of some words that we shouldn't get bogged down in

its literally the assignment of meaning to those words. which is really pretty close to arguing about the truth of the sentence

just to argue semantics

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#257

Post by wlonkly »

not2b wrote: post #118
scatters wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now more than ever, Wikipedia must be publicly verifiable. That means that any claim can be checked by anyone with an Internet connection and a library card. Imagine if contested articles contained controversial facts on the basis of secret evidence? The editor made the right call.

But if the editors receive proof that a statement article is wrong, but that information can't be published on the Internet for copyright or other reasons, that means it is proven that the source of the information is wrong, so that source should be removed as unreliable at least in this case. If the rules of Wikipedia don't allow unsourced information, they don't prevent removing incorrect information that has been…

There is no particular group who are "the editors". You are "the editors". So am I, and I have no idea about this situation. That's why articles need publicly-accessible sources.

Now, if there's something in the article that is (1) wrong and (2) unsourced, then that should be removed from the article. (And if someone re-adds unsourced material to an article, then there are process to deal with that). But if there are no public sources for information it does not go in the encyclopedia.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#258

Post by topranks »

can16358p wrote: post #162

At least you can be an author there. I am for whatever reason geoblocked from writing anything (I never spammed, probably a country-wide block) and when I use VPN (either shared or my own instance) then I'm blocked again for potential spam because of, again, IP block (this time cloud provider or VPN IP). I believe I can have a positive contribution to Wikipedia but they never allowed me to write, since like, 10 years…

You’re probably just unluckily stuck on an IP range that’s been responsible for vandalism or similar in past.

Did you request an unblock?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:I_have_been_blocked

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#259

Post by topranks »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #193

Instead of edit wars allow forking. So allow for multiple versions of articles with metalevel descriptions about the difference. This way we could have actual conversations about where the different perspectives come from and who has the better arguments.

I think this would be very confusing.

You basically legitimise lies on one page by giving them equal status as the truth.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#260

Post by claytongulick »

KerrAvon wrote: post #240
claytongulick wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing this sort of obvious political bias does is discredit Wikipedia and push readers to less reputable sites for information. Like many others on here, I prefer to go directly to multiple biased sources like npr, CNN, breitbart, nypost because I understand their bias and can sort through it to tease out information. The thing that I find the most distasteful is any source that purports to be unbiased, but…

What bias do you think CNN has? Genuinely curious which part of the spectrum you think they belong to, because I could make arguments for either side. Breitbart is an editorial/propaganda magazine, not a news source. Why would you go there for anything?

> Breitbart is an editorial/propaganda magazine, not a news source. Why would you go there for anything?

I think that label can be applied to most "news" sources these days.

To answer your question specifically though, it is because they report on events that other places don't, based on their particular bias.

Post reply on HN