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

71–80 of 301 posts

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#71

Post by snarkerson »

threatofrain wrote: post #60
adhesive_wombat wrote: post #30

Get the Wikimedia Foundation to spend money on the technical foundation of the sites, rather than spraying millions up the wall of "racial justice". That's not me making a strawman by going straight to "omg, the SJWs", it's a exact phrase from the 3rd paragraph of the 4.5 million Knowledge Equity Fund page [1]. That, and executive pay, is where donations go, not to keeping the lights on. The running cost to keeping t…

> It certainly isn't the case that engineering is "done" either, as the open bug count is growing constantly and huge swathes of the software aren't maintained and don't even have maintainers[2]. Wikipedia is moving to Vue.

That's almost just like doing something to fix things.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#72

Post by majani »

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…

At Wikipedia's scale, the red tape is more of a safety harness than anything

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#73

Post by NoSorryCannot »

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…

I feel your frustration but I don't think I want a Wikipedia with secret citations and an editor voucher system. Such a scheme would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia, which is nominally supposed to be verifiable and editable by any reader, and could only reinforce the gatekeeping mentality of its editors.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#74

Post by zozbot234 »

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…

Since this person is family, you can issue a publicly-available statement, e.g. on a website, and it will most likely qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia's policies. The point is that Wikipedia must never be a primary source for what it writes about; it just always be able to point at a source for what it says. Wikipedians' job is to broadly evaluate and curate sources, not guess at the truth of any individual statement.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#75

Post by actuator »

civilized wrote: post #37
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 agree. While some articles may seem to have a slant in emphasis, I can't recall a time when credible information contrary to the slant was omitted or distorted. That's much better than I can say for just about any other source I read online. I remain an avid wikipedia reader.

> some articles may seem to have a slant in emphasis

The editorial slant which sets the tone of the article also colours the thoughts of the reader, it is not just dissemination or omission of facts. Moreover, editors do tend to give more weightage to some sources than the other if they are reporting on the same issue.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#76

Post by [deleted] »

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #30

Get the Wikimedia Foundation to spend money on the technical foundation of the sites, rather than spraying millions up the wall of "racial justice". That's not me making a strawman by going straight to "omg, the SJWs", it's a exact phrase from the 3rd paragraph of the 4.5 million Knowledge Equity Fund page [1]. That, and executive pay, is where donations go, not to keeping the lights on. The running cost to keeping t…

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#77

Post by ethbr0 »

ironSkillet wrote: post #17
JavaBatman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First is that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". Uh...what? Where is the proof of this?

He is quoting political comedian Stephen Colbert, referring to the fact that different political groups all independently believe that their perspective is actually a reflection of reality.

And it is! If everyone's reality == their politically-oriented news.

Which is why objective, quality journalism is so critical to a democracy.

Or, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan (and Schlesinger et al.) succinctly put it, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#78

Post by lucb1e »

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…

> an editor [...] stated he could only allow changes to the "facts" if my SO could point to an online source (a credible one he said).

That's plainly false, how many Wikipedia articles have (annoying, I'll admit) offline references to books, papers, and other things that are only available under specific terms and conditions, typically after some payment? You don't have to own anything's copyright to reference it. (In many jurisdictions you'd also be allowed to publish excerpts as fair use, that would make this easier but that's not a prerequisite here anyway.)

And does Wikipedia even have an approval system? I thought either you have permission to edit a page or you don't (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19&action=e...). This whole situation sounds quite odd.

Not that I haven't dealt with overzealous page protectors myself that have some "I did a million-and-one edits and am holier than thou" status and will revert anything that changes their perception of the world. I don't disbelieve the situation in general, just those details seem odd to me.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#79

Post by thetrip »

JavaBatman wrote: post #9
edent wrote: post #8

There are a few problems that need to be dealt with. First is that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". Which means lots of people want a "neutral point of view" which reflects their own opinion. Secondly, there are lots of trolls and bad-faith actors. So a bureaucracy needs to be built up to deal with it in a structured and consistent (not necessarily fair) way. Thirdly, what can incentivise people? Most editors…

> First is that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". Uh...what? Where is the proof of this?

I know i will f(l)agged for this. But have some kind on me, it's just my opinion at the end. I know, through my work, some homo lads. The are not well, most of then needs some kind of help. But criminalizing this was the worst idea we ever have: some of my greatest idols were gay or least post as them: Wilde, Melville, Petronius, Capote... Some of them suffers the criminalization, some of them lived in a period when being gay was not a crimen or was not different at all. Edit: Freddie, I miss you as hell, man.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#80

Post by shagie »

RamblingCTO wrote: post #36
ChildOfEru wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

not sure if /s or not, but the first page is literally "Overcoming homosexuality". wtf?

It was founded by Andrew Schlafly ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Schlafly ), son of Phyllis Schlafly.

You should check out the "Conservative Bible Project" ( https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project ) and check its edit history.

Post reply on HN