Wikipedia is 20 • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#11

Post by op03 » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:11 AM UTC

neilpanchal wrote: post #6

Take note: The interface hasn't changed much, a good thing.

Most importantly it hasnt adopted the Like/Follower count based Reward system that lot of people in the tech world have mindlessly included all over the place.

Try running any org with a Like and Follower count based reward system and check what surfaces and who pays a prices.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#12

Post by ignoranceprior » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

neilpanchal wrote: post #6

Take note: The interface hasn't changed much, a good thing.

The main changes were the switch from UseModWiki to MediaWiki (using the Monobook skin), and from Monobook to Vector.

https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/?useskin=monobook

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#13

Post by Bud » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #10

I've been funding Wikipedia for years and use it several times daily. It has indeed grown into an amazing source of knowledge documenting this world. However there are insidious problems building up. For example, I've noticed that they are starting to encode a lot of biases into its articles, particularly on topics that are part of the political sphere. These articles often reflect a US progressive-left worldview rat…

Could you cite some examples that you feel are especially egregious?

Have you tried to remedy this by editing any of those articles and backing up your edits with a solid factual argument?

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#14

Post by notRobot » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:13 AM UTC

matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

Plenty of subtle agenda-pushing on Wikipedia if you're paying attention

That's a pretty serious allegation, and you're going to have to elaborate on that.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#15

Post by helloitsian » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:13 AM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #10

I've been funding Wikipedia for years and use it several times daily. It has indeed grown into an amazing source of knowledge documenting this world. However there are insidious problems building up. For example, I've noticed that they are starting to encode a lot of biases into its articles, particularly on topics that are part of the political sphere. These articles often reflect a US progressive-left worldview rat…

What would be a good place to find one of these biases?

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#16

Post by Bud » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:13 AM UTC

matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

Plenty of subtle agenda-pushing on Wikipedia if you're paying attention

Such as?

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#17

Post by astrange » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:14 AM UTC

notRobot wrote: post #14

matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

Plenty of subtle agenda-pushing on Wikipedia if you're paying attention

That's a pretty serious allegation, and you're going to have to elaborate on that.

It is? It seems kind of obvious to me. People who don’t care about a topic are not going to edit the page about it.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#18

Post by sharkweek » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:15 AM UTC

Ah good stuff - I love Wikipedia more than almost any other non-living thing that has been created in my lifetime. If you had told me the idea as a pitch 20 years ago I would have assumed you were capital I insane for thinking it would work.

It was pretty fresh when I was in college and I remember my professors all being pretty explicit about not using it as a source. Thought I had figured out the world’s biggest life hack when I started using the sources listed on Wikipedia as my sources for papers.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#19

Post by lovecg » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:15 AM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #10

I've been funding Wikipedia for years and use it several times daily. It has indeed grown into an amazing source of knowledge documenting this world. However there are insidious problems building up. For example, I've noticed that they are starting to encode a lot of biases into its articles, particularly on topics that are part of the political sphere. These articles often reflect a US progressive-left worldview rat…

Could you share an example of a biased article? I haven’t really noticed that (at least for the visible, high profile articles) - the coverage has been as balanced as anywhere.

Where it might get “extreme” is on niche topics that few people care about. For example I remember some articles associated with the whole “audiophile” scene were claiming some silly things without much evidence behind them, but that’s pretty innocuous in my view.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#20

Post by whym » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:16 AM UTC

neilpanchal wrote: post #6

Take note: The interface hasn't changed much, a good thing.

Not to disagree, but the mobile web site brought a significantly different user experience (for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ocean vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ocean), and the mobile readership has been at least as large as the desktop for a long time. [1]

[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/reading/total...