Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia is 20

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 391 posts

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#51

Post by HDMI_Cable »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #35
HDMI_Cable wrote: post #2

One reason Wikipedia was able to grow so quickly was because of its scale. Instead of relying on a few posh journal editors like Britannica, anyone could contribute. And while you have edge cases of people trolling and some misinformation, you also have a much larger labour pool of people dedicated to helping, not for a paycheque, but their own personal reasons.

> One reason Wikipedia was able to grow so quickly was because of its scale. I've carefully studied all three definitions of "scale" my dictionary offers up, and come to the conclusion that this sentence either means absolutely nothing ("It is big because it is big"), or something really strange ("Wikipedia grew because of its plate-like skin coverings").

Sorry, that was a bit unclear on my part. I was alluding to scale as in Wikipedia's massive pool of available editors being able to publish more content than competitors, thereby driving more traffic.

(But of course, we all know that Wikipedia is run by the lizard people with the aforementioned plate-like skin coverings.)

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#52

Post by Uptrenda »

I really do hate Wikipedia and almost never use it. It's a collection of poorly spun word-salad stolen loosely from third-parties. And the aim isn't on quality but to satisfy the editors compulsive need to contribute to Wikipedia's ever-growing rat's nest of non-sense... just because. In every article there will always be a historical section probably about 3/4ths the articles width that you just skip over (it's useless.) Then, maybe if you're lucky there will be some notes of value.

These notes are almost always useless for two reasons:

1. They are never detailed enough to do anything with.

2. They usually assume massive amounts of prior audience knowledge. To the point where said audience wouldn't need the website.

So they have the unique distinction of being useless to both beginners and expert audiences (quite the feat if you think about.) In the end after you've realized whatever article you're reading is useless (mostly all of them) you'll leave and do what you should have done in the first place: your own research.

I really do wish there was a way to block results in Google. Wikipedia and it's merry band of 13-yo editors would be the first to go.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#53

Post by zozbot234 »

throwawaysea wrote: post #37
lovecg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th... , which is about a term called "Cultural Marxism" which has been used by some mainstream right-leaning people as well as some right-leaning extremists (particularly in the past). If you look at the article itself, it titles this article as a "conspiracy theory" and specifically features the conspiracy theory version of "Cultural Marxism" i…

The article about the conspiracy theory has a disambiguating note pointing to "Marxist cultural analysis" as a more common term for the non-conspiratorial use of "Cultural Marxism". The remaining question is whether the conspiratorial use is significant/common enough that it deserves to be treated as the "default", and that's an editorial question that could be argued from either side. It's an uncomfortable situation to be sure, but there's no blatant political bias here.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#54

Post by mattcwilson »

lovecg wrote: post #19
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…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#55

Post by kyle_martin1 »

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.

This. Wikipedia severely locks out content creators to provide balanced views on politics.

It’s no secret the current content creators lean towards one side of the isle.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#56

Post by incompatible »

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…

Conservatives have set up their own version at http://conservapedia.com/. I can understand why a lot of that material isn't found in Wikipedia.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#57

Post by sien »

throwawaysea wrote: post #37
lovecg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th... , which is about a term called "Cultural Marxism" which has been used by some mainstream right-leaning people as well as some right-leaning extremists (particularly in the past). If you look at the article itself, it titles this article as a "conspiracy theory" and specifically features the conspiracy theory version of "Cultural Marxism" i…

It's interesting to contrast that with the article on Neoliberalism.

Both are terms that are generally used to disparage views of others. Except for the new 'Neoliberal' clique who are centre left most people described as Neoliberals don't describe themselves that way. Just as what many right of centre would term as 'Cultural Marxists' wouldn't describe themselves that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#58

Post by senkora »

justinzollars wrote: post #46
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.

100%. Wikipedia is an excellent recourse for anything non political, especially scientific and technical information.

It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics.

That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m free to help out...).

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#59

Post by Merman_Mike »

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.

This is a current event that is extremely political:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_pro...

It cites 462 sources and the parts I read are at least as objective as any news outlet.

I know that Wikipedia editors lean left. I'd be interested to see examples of this bias in Wiki entries though.

Post reply on HN