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

271–280 of 301 posts

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#271

Post by noxer »

topranks wrote: post #252
noxer wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inter…

Its exactly the other way around the sanctions of others pushed them in a non-neutral position where they would allow Russia to circumvent sanctions through Switzerland and Switzerland would profit from this war. THAT is the reason why they joined the sanctions not to "take sides" but to stay neutral according to the Swiss neutrality principle which is not some kind of banal neutrality people think it is that basically assumes Switzerland just pretends nothing happens if its outside their border. That would be ignorance not neutrality.

Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30576264

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#272

Post by zozbot234 »

davidgerard wrote: post #265
zozbot234 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

Even after arguing for the change on the appropriate talk/noticeboard pages and getting qualified support and zero opposition? I'm not sure this has ever been tried properly, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#273

Post by can16358p »

topranks wrote: post #258
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

I don't (and can't) have a static IP because I constantly move between several places, usually on mobile hotspot or stuck to LTE modem where in one of the places aı live there isn't fiber or VDSL, and my ISP doesn't offer static IP over LTE.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#274

Post by zozbot234 »

calumetregion wrote: post #261
notafraudster wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mak…

You can argue for this change yourself, if you have sources that are not too fringe. Though you'd probably have to phrase it properly. Who exactly has described these sites as left-wing, and where?

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#275

Post by lozenge »

_Nat_ wrote: post #200
bjourne wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a specific example: Circumcision It has the features OP complains about. Content controlled by a small number of "guardians" who knows every Wikipedia rule and policy in existence and uses them to keep outsiders out. A shockingly biased tone that omits every dissenting source. The article's guardians call them "anti-circumcisionists" and in their view, the critics objects are as valid as 9/11 conspiracy theor…

> The fact that many believe that male circumcision is a grave violation of boys' rights to body autonomy is not. For reference, how many people believe that? Like, is it a view held by 50% of the population, 10% of the population, or is it more of a niche view, or..? Because when we get down to stuff that --- Tried looking it up; appears to be a niche perspective. A significant minority of the population doesn't fav…

How did you jump from the view being "niche" or "minority" to it being irrelevant?

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#276

Post by joshxyz »

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…

Moat of it is outdated.

I think of wikipedia as the old encyclopedia books where they are just snapshots of reality.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#277

Post by formerly_proven »

contravariant wrote: post #255
formerly_proven wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The latter

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#278

Post by xtracto »

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.

I've got a good counter example: Thwme wikipedia entry on Serrapeptidase is a disgrace. The talk page is very enlightening: a couple of "powerful" editors took the page and created a narrative they want to show. While lots of people are showing plenty of evidence around the web showing other points of view. The result is a very poorly informative wiki page that lacks a lot of the information that can be found in all web sites from the first page results of a Google search.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#279

Post by xtracto »

bwb wrote: post #11

Sorry, I am not quite sure what the problem is? I think Wikipedia is great from my day to usage. Can you point me to specific examples where the output is bad due to this? I would like to see the problem.

Look at the Serrapeptidase entry. Then do a cursory search on google on the same and then on google scholar.

You will see the amount of information missing from the wiki page.(compare with Serrapeptidase entry on say drugs.com).

Then look at the Talk page of the entry. You'll see the editorial battle there with some "power editors" squashing any attempt to correct the page.

Post reply on HN