Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia is 20

economist.com

71–80 of 391 posts

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

I'm not sure what your point is. That sentence is entirely correct with reference to the conspiracy theory - there's no actual conspiracy or "intellectual tendency" to conspire along the posited lines. Marxist cultural analysis is a rather different animal; to be sure, there are genuinely weird interactions between it and e.g. radical Maoist politics/worldviews which push some proponents of either towards an ideological extreme that's somewhat reminiscent of the 'Cultural Marxist' claims ("Destroy the Four Olds!") - but even then, that's a random/contingent political equilibrium; not a willful conspiracy or even a well-defined "intellectual tendency".

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#72

I am surprised that the comments haven't mentioned the role of SEO in Wikipedia's growth and defensibility. Wikipedia's habit of deep interlinking helped it rank back in the early aughts when the SEO rules were rather simple. Add to that the subdomain-driven localization strategy and many other moves that were considered SEO best practices back in those years when the on-page factors used to matter. But that was just…

It is somehow sad that "caring about content quality" is considered SEO and not just making a good website.

I think more than half the things you mentioned are only good SEO because search engines want to send people to websites they will like reading. I think when that is the case, we should be crediting people for making good websites, not good SEO.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#73
post #66
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes I had the same thought, then I guessed parent might be referring to how wiki doesn't present topics in a way that's easily digestible for someone approaching new topics in math, which I can get behind. It is an encyclopedia after all.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#74

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 lif…

Same here, Wikipedia sources were a great life hack for uni on easy mode.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#75
post #58

Earlier 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...).

It's a good reference, though. Even the articles that are obviously copied and pasted from someone's homework tend to at least be useful places to find references.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#76
I think we can't overstate the deep impact Wikipedia had in the past 20 years. The initial idea was so counter-initiative. I thought it would fail due to vandalism. But despite that, it thrived, and somehow it became a great source of knowledge.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#77

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

The popup cards when you mouse over an internal link that they added semi-recently are an awesome addition, though. Great melding of the old interface with a highly useful newer feature, in my opinion.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#78
post #42

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

Hard disagree. If anything I'd say its value and reputation for current events and politics are higher than ever. Please substantiate your unfair attack. Also: there's a typo in your comment. First word should be "Its", and not "It's".

I don't think its hard to believe. Trust in media is at record lows. Since Wikipedia just repeats what the mainstream media says via its policy of using "reliable secondary sources", then wouldn't it follow that trust in Wikipedia would follow?

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#79

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

Subtle? Read the wiki page on hunter biden.

I just read it, and am not sure how else it could be written... do you expect Wikipedia to treat unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as anything but that? Are they supposed to pretend a conspiracy theory is possible out of 'fairness'?

Are you also upset that they don't have a section on the Earth page saying the world might be flat?

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#80
It's funny. We just showed our kids the Pixar movie "Monsters Inc", which I hadn't realized was also 20 years old until the movie ended and the info screen came up. I think of it as a contemporary movie, "not that old".

But I think of Wikipedia as having always existed.

Funny how memory works.

Also, I've lived longer with Wikipedia than without.

I guess I'm getting old.

Post reply on HN