Wikipedia is 20
61–70 of 391 posts
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a write-up on the subject. https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/
[flagged]
Glib statements by comedians are not a good foundation for truth seeking. They are however great at maintaining emotional protection over one's viewpoints.
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#63Three aphorisms in honor of Wikipedia, greatest encyclopedia in world history, and its 20 years of free knowledge uncorrupted by advertising:
* Wikipedia works in practice, but not in theory.
* Wikipedia is the worst source of information, except for all the others.
* Wikipedia: the Internet’s greatest reason to feel a little bit optimistic about human nature.
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#64Its reputation is severely declining, especially on topics relating to current events, figures, or politics. It, however, remains excellent for technical knowledge.
Interestingly enough the talk page is quite good to learn about current events and see every view. Though it is obvious that some mods and admins have an agenda; to be honest I didn't even realize it till I saw the war over Kamala's wiki page, super shady stuff.
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is an example for people asking for one. As an experiment I tried to get some fairly innocuous numbers into participation in Australia sport. There is a big survey done in Australia, the Ausplay survey: https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/ They have extensive tables on adult participation. Two editors would not let this data into the sport in Australia article. The reason was fairly obvious, it shows that s…
Here's the RFC in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sport_in_Australia#RFC_on... As can be expected when you're told that "the reason was fairly obvious" and that reason is somewhat nefarious, that reason is not the one given by anybody involved. Instead, people took issue with the methodology used to gather the data. (I have no idea if that criticism is legitimate, nor do I have any other horse in this ra…
Check out how they ignore that the suggestion that if they take issue with those statistics they should take issue with the statistics that were currently in the article, notably cricket playing figures from Cricket Australia which, while they might be worth including, should have cautionary notes on them.
They didn't care about that.
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...).
I can barely believe I'm reading this comment! Wikipedia is my first and almost always only stop whenever I want to learn something related to math.
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Check the sources cited in this particular sentence:
Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact and is not based on any actual intellectual tendency.[5][7]
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
My feeling is that "neoliberalism" is a term with a greater degree of academic formality behind it, as well as consensus in terms of definition. I don't think it was originally pejorative, although it has come to be used as an insult, in the same way "Boomer" has. The term "Cultural Marxists" is probably pejorative to those it targets, although I've seen its use as a shorthand for a collection of ideas the right finds disagreeable, rather than a pejorative. It's a term that feels self-describing and immediately obvious to those who use it, but it does not have an academic foundation like "neoliberal" does. And its definition has varied over time, which is the cause of the current lack of consensus on what it refers to. As a result, each political side I think uses the definition that most favors their own ideological bias.
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#69Its reputation is severely declining, especially on topics relating to current events, figures, or politics. It, however, remains excellent for technical knowledge.
Interestingly enough the talk page is quite good to learn about current events and see every view. Though it is obvious that some mods and admins have an agenda; to be honest I didn't even realize it till I saw the war over Kamala's wiki page, super shady stuff.
What are you talking about? I just skimmed the Kamala Harris talk page and it's all bickering about trivial edits as far as I saw.
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...).
This is slightly distressing — I’m fascinated by a lot of complicated math concepts that are far above my comprehension level, and Wikipedia is high on the list of places I check.
Do you have any suggestions of better sites to read?