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

101–110 of 391 posts

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#101

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

elliotec wrote: post #97
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Since Wikipedia just repeats what the mainstream media says Citation needed.

I mean, anyone who has ever edited wikipedia can tell you. If you restrict your sources to ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT and friends, your article is going to read like a mainstream media story. And as the media gets more and more hysterical that starts to reflect on the quality of their articles.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#102

Post by shepherdjerred »

sharkweek wrote: post #18

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…

Wikipedia is incredible. I find it frustrating when friends say it's unreliable/not to be trusted.

Of course it's not perfect, but I've learned plenty enough from it to be well worth the trade-off

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#103

Post by elliotec »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #28
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.

Any examples?

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#104

Post by elliotec »

cortesoft wrote: post #79
barbacoa wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Fairness" is the enemy of accuracy in cases like this.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#105

Post by tshaddox »

jjcon wrote: post #81
Merman_Mike wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One random example I ran across recently of note to HN crowd - the creator of Javscript and Brave, Founder of Mozilla Brendan Eich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich Under known for it says, “Known for JavaScript, opposition to same-sex marriage” Really? I’m as gay as they come but this just gives me scarlet letter vibes. I sincerely doubt people know this guy for his work opposing ssm (of which there wasn’t…

Just an anecdote, but those are the top 2 and only 2 things I know him for. Didn’t know (or at least remember) that he created Brave or was involved with Mozilla. I’d be willing to bet that, indeed, those are the top 2 things he is known for.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#106

Post by elliotec »

Uptrenda wrote: post #52

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 usel…

Wow... really? This is shocking to me. Where do you typically get information about stuff that everyone else goes to Wikipedia for?

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#107

Post by tshaddox »

jjcon wrote: post #99
elliotec wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's what he's known for. It was a very big deal when it was discovered that he opposed and donated against gay marriage. He resigned as CEO of Mozilla over it. Many people outside of internet communities like HN first learned his name when this all went down. Creator of JS wasn't as big a deal to most people at the time as CEO of a major non profit internet company opposing one of the biggest human rights is…

> as CEO of a major non profit internet company opposing one of the biggest human rights issues of our time. Obama, the president of the united states opposed same sex marriage at the time of the donations, as did most americans. I hardly fight it noteworthy considering how widespread it was.

Lots of people opposed it at the time. That’s pretty much required in order for it to be one of the biggest human rights issues at the time.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#108

Post by elliotec »

moron4hire wrote: post #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.

You're not alone. What a strange feeling.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#109

Post by jjcon »

tshaddox wrote: post #107
jjcon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as CEO of a major non profit internet company opposing one of the biggest human rights issues of our time. Obama, the president of the united states opposed same sex marriage at the time of the donations, as did most americans. I hardly fight it noteworthy considering how widespread it was.

Lots of people opposed it at the time. That’s pretty much required in order for it to be one of the biggest human rights issues at the time.

Which is exactly my point

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#110

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

elliotec wrote: post #103
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Any examples?

Sure.

English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)

Russian: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=htt...

Post reply on HN