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

261–270 of 301 posts

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#261

Post by calumetregion »

notafraudster wrote: post #91
calumetregion wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people asking for examples. For an easy one (among millions) just compare The New York Times Wikipedia article to the article for The Epoch Times. "Oh, but The Epoch Times is right wing, so..." How can I compare the Ochs-Sulzberger family to the Falun Gong? Well I just did. They're both made up of humans with opinions.

I just read through both articles but I don't understand the point you're making. Is it that the NYT article is more fleshed out and talks about their various print products? You can add such a section to the Epoch Times.

Because of a different thread I thought of another subtle, yet similar example. Look at the Wikipedia entry for The Verge. It's a media product, a tech news site, all good. But it's a "left wing" site on the merits. Not a single mention of that in the Wikipedia article. There's a little bit of discussion about tabloid-style content on the Talk page, but it doesn't go anywhere. Even the Vox Media Wikipedia article makes no mention of this being a lefty business. Wild, isn't it?

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#262

Post by cf141q5325 »

topranks wrote: post #259
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.

Which you can point out one level higher. All it would do is to allow actual conversation and getting an overview of existing perspectives. This would allow to actually point out holes in peoples worldview which are normally glossed over.

The problem with the "legitimizing lies" perspective is that i havent seen a perfect truth machine lie around. Plus there being incentives to have you belief you already found a convenient truth. You iteratively improve through finding (or getting pushed into) errors in your perspective. Thats something we can help each other with, and i havent seen a better alternative. As far as i can tell, they are all quite a bit worse.

I think all it is is a complexity problem. Which you can tackle with better tooling. Just not one that thinks for us but that makes discourse more efficient.

edit: Differently put, i think the problem is that nobody bothered to explain to me well enough how stupid i am. And i dont see why i should be attached to remaining stupid. Unfortunately however there dont seem to be any spare smart people for the task so we dummies might have to figure something out together.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#263

Post by qiskit »

enterpriseyWiki wrote: post #245
qiskit wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Jack Copeland (2004) attributes the introduction of the term halting problem to the work of Martin Davis in the 1950s.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem Martin Davis did in the early 1950s after Turing's death. > and that the halting problem is undecidable follows trivially from that. Trivially? Took nearly 2 decades after Turing published his paper for Martin Davis to come up with the halting proble…

I would recommend making those points on the article's talk page instead of (or in addition to) on here.

Why? I'm not a fan of wikipedia and don't wish to use my time to assist it in any way whatsoever. I've grown weary of wikipedia and much of tech/social media that profits off of free labor essentially.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#264

Post by davidgerard »

actuator wrote: post #56
magpi3 wrote: post #12

Well I suppose another "Who watches the watchmen" type site can be built to report on bias issues/irresponsible editors. But ideally Wikipedia itself would build some internal mechanism for dealing with disputes. Has it done so? I have heard that Wikipedia is "broken" before, but without specific examples the complaint comes across as hollow. And if you do have specific examples, then I think it gives people the chan…

> But ideally Wikipedia itself would build some internal mechanism It has WP:ANI, but it is hard to go against established editors, if they are not writing outright lies or doing harassment. Say, if I want to edit a line from a summary of the Wikipedia page on a person which unfairly represents a person and the established editor thinks it makes sense, then I can't do anything. They are not writing misinformation as…

> I would give specific examples here but

but then people would be able to assess your claims based on the evidence, and your hyperbole might not work out?

You've alluded to discussions you claim to have had, and made claims about the people you argued with. (I bet I was one of them.) Are you able to at least link those?

Your repeated refusal to say what you're talking about gives the impression you're blowing smoke.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#265

Post by davidgerard »

zozbot234 wrote: post #127
actuator wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have tried making an effort for this in the past but it didn't work as there was no opposition but there wasn't much support as well. Also, I am not sure how we can verifiably prove that the editorial stance of one source is either day pro or against something, so it should be rated higher or lower, and if equal whose tone do we go with. As wiki editorialisation of news events is not preferred, you will have to go…

"Some support but no opposition" qualifies as consensus, at least provisionally. So you should be WP:BOLD and just edit the policy page directly. People might be upset and revert you, but you won't be in the wrong because you did after all seek consensus on talk, and they didn't object.

editors trying this on WP:RSP get reverted in short order

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#266

Post by iudqnolq »

calumetregion wrote: post #49
29vito wrote: post #21

Could you please point to an example where you feel the article isn't neutral?

Many people asking for examples. For an easy one (among millions) just compare The New York Times Wikipedia article to the article for The Epoch Times. "Oh, but The Epoch Times is right wing, so..." How can I compare the Ochs-Sulzberger family to the Falun Gong? Well I just did. They're both made up of humans with opinions.

Well, the New York Times (for all it's numerous flaws) is the most prominent newspaper in the United States. Epoch Times is run by a Chinese dissident cult. Obviously there's going to be different treatment.

I'm not even arguing (although I could) that one is more correct. The New York Times prints an order of magnitude more physical newspapers (roughly 300,000 to the Epoch Time's 30,000), and is thus obviously more notable.

Edit: Those numbers are for the English language edition in the US

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#267

Post by histriosum »

Lascaille wrote: post #250
KerrAvon wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>What bias do you think CNN has? CNN was openly anti-Trump for the entire administration, as in, instructions were literally passed down that reporting should be slanted in such a way as to taint him. It isn't a case of having to think they have a bias, it's a case of literally being told that bias is part of their policy. It wasn't hard to spot, either. Their reportage during the Trump administration was absurd. You…

> CNN was openly anti-Trump for the entire administration, as in, instructions were literally passed down that reporting should be slanted in such a way as to taint him.

Interesting. Do you have a link to the evidence of these instructions? I'd like to read them.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#268

Post by sdoering »

lucb1e wrote: post #249
sdoering wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's plainly false, Thanks for denying experience. You could have said: "That should not be the case." But yet he kept denying changes. > offline references to books, papers, and other things that are only available under specific terms and conditions, typically after some payment I was talking about birth certificates, official but personal documents, things like birthday greetings personally signed by Erich Hon…

> Thanks for denying experience That's not what I meant. Was already thinking whether this was clear enough or if I should edit... apparently I should have edited. Apologies. I meant it the way that pxeger1 mentioned in their sibling comment: the person denying your (SO's) edits was saying something that is clearly not true.

Thanks for clarification. Very much appreciated.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#269

Post by QuietCF »

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…

It doesn’t have to do with military neutrality. The sentence implies that Switzerland due to their neutral status never or almost never agree to sanctions of any kind. However their neutral status has never been an indication of that. It clearly reads as sanctions despite historical neutrality.

Either this is an entertainment piece and they can write it how they want (but it shouldn’t be mentioned on a wiki page) or it’s a news piece and should be without these kind of “suggestive but not exactly saying it” articles that blur the line between non-news and deniability thereof.

The only thing it would have cost them to not mention Switzerland’s neutrality would be clicks/money. 0% truth would have been lost writing the context properly.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#270

Post by noxer »

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…

"Swiss neutrality" is its own "thing" its not the same as "military neutrality" its a very broad concept that does include military neutrality but many more things that aren't part of the dictionary definition of the word "neutrality". I would point you to the wiki article that explains it but its very bad.

Anyway the overall conclusion people get when reading the statement that neutral countries DESPITE being neural joined sanctions (picked a side/no longer neutral) and that is wrong especially in case of Switzerland.

Its not semantics its factually wrong because if there would be an attempt to connect "Swiss neutrality" to the sanctions it would be the other way around. I.e. to stay true to the concept Switzerland would have to join sanctions because other wise it could be used to circumvent the sanctions from others which then could theoretically interfere with the idea behind Swiss neutrality especially if Switzerland or companies there would profit from this.

>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.

Indeed but its not just that, even if something is know (or known to be wrong) if no one in the accepted sources group actually explicitly write it out then there is no source and you can not add it to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editors also like to write X as if it is a fact then if the is a source opposing it they write the opposition as a quote from the given author or source.

Post reply on HN