Wikipedia is 20 • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#21

Post by colejohnson66 » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:16 AM UTC

op03 wrote: post #11

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.

StackOverflow was doing good until the Eternal September began. They also forgot to take into account changing “best practices”

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#22

Post by epoch_100 » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:17 AM UTC

Bud wrote: post #16

matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

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

Such as?

I did some work [0] at the Stanford Internet Observatory that somewhat supports OP's claim. We found that while Wikipedia is generally very good at maintaining neutrality, some bad edits slip through the cracks.

[0] https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io/news/wikipedia-part-one

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#23

Post by admiralspoo » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:18 AM UTC

Its reputation is severely declining, especially on topics relating to current events, figures, or politics.

It, however, remains excellent for technical knowledge.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#24

Post by lovecg » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:19 AM UTC

astrange wrote: post #17

notRobot wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that’s sort of how the whole thing tends to work. If a topic is niche and one sided, you’ll get your small filter bubble which doesn’t really hurt anyone. If it’s controversial, the writing will tend towards the careful middle. It’s not perfect but works as well as anything its size could.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#25

Post by zozbot234 » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:20 AM UTC

matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

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

Agenda-pushing is quite common on Wiki, especially around controversial areas. You can read all about it on the Talk page for each article. The hope is that it all balances out in the end, but this does become harder to guarantee as high-quality, reliable sources for some points of view are getting increasingly thin and hard to find, both online and offline. (I'm aware that Larry Sanger among others has complained about this development, but it is a genuinely hard problem to solve as we can't just get rid of all sourcing standards in the service of less-represented viewpoints.)

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#26

Post by barbacoa » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:22 AM UTC

matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

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

Subtle?

Read the wiki page on hunter biden.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#27

Post by tw04 » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:22 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.

I thought it was pretty well known that Wikipedia has been gamed repeatedly over the years. From companies to individuals. Generally speaking in the LONG TERM, things get corrected. But they are definitely not perfect and their editors have bias whether intentional or not.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-fac...

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#28

Post by Acrobatic_Road » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:23 AM UTC

matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

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

Oh, it's not even subtle. Here's a game you can play: compare an article with the same article in another language. If you don't speak another language then use google translate. You'll see where the agenda pushing is.

Oh, and always read talk pages.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#29

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:25 AM UTC

Bud wrote: post #16

matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

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

Such as?

Some people believe "Neutral Point of View" means you are supposed to write articles about serial killers in such a way that reading them would have no impact on your willingness to let them marry your son.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#30

Post by gchamonlive » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:25 AM UTC

admiralspoo wrote: post #23

Its reputation is severely declining, especially on topics relating to current events, figures, or politics. It, however, remains excellent for technical knowledge.

Current events are so divisive and many times no one has a clear picture of what's happening that I can't see how someone objectively assesses a current event news outlet as lacking reputation without prior incidents.