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

131–140 of 391 posts

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#131

Post by nsajko »

in3d wrote: post #125
aerosmile wrote: post #40

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…

That's one version. Another version, that I know will go over very well here, is that some have invested a lot of money to bring high quality, accessibly-written off-line content by experts in the field to the Web, only for Wikipedia editors to poorly rewrite it in thousands of articles and rank over the original content in Google. And then Wikipedia started using non-follow links so the original sites got no benefit…

I don't like Wikimedia nor the Wikipedias, but I don't get your point and I think you're incorrect (unless you're talking about Wikipedia's early days).

The way Wikipedia should work is by sourcing verifiable facts from reputable sources, and copyright violations are not allowed. I don't understand to what are you referring with "high quality, accessibly-written off-line content"? Britannica isn't high-quality and journalism isn't written by experts in the field.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#132

Post by Kim_Bruning »

wolverine876 wrote: post #49

I was originally enthusiastic about the 'wisdom of the crowds' and its potential. The Internet was a great experiment with unknown possibilities. I edited Wikipedia and talked about its potential. I was skeptical at the same time - it was an experiment, not a revelation. I used to tell people, 'I don't know how Wikipedia could work, but it seems to'. I'd apply 'The Cathedral and the Bizarre' concept to it, and 'with…

Interesting question, how did the article end up?

In general Wikipedia does have mechanisms to deal with this sort of thing, but admins don't always catch on early enough.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#133

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

_hyrb wrote: post #126
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess he's known for it in the sense that he made a $1000 donation to support prop 8 and a bunch of people overreacted and he had to resign. Really, he's known for a specific controversy around gay marriage.

> SECTION 1. Title: This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." > SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. If you donate a dollar to supporting this you're 𝚙̶𝚛̶𝚘̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚋̶𝚕̶𝚢̶ a dick. Edit: You're definitely a dick if you donate a dollar…

he's not a dick, he's just a christian

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#134

Post by cyphar »

elliotec wrote: post #122
cyphar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to understand most Wikipedia mathematics articles you need to already be well versed in the topic you're looking up. Even after finishing a Physics degree I struggle to understand the derivations of common physics equations because they use far more advanced concepts than necessary to demonstrate their point.

So, should it have all the foundational build-ups to get to an understanding of the topic? I think that'd be amazing but quite difficult given it took you however many years to get that degree, and I can barely get a computer to do basic arithmetic for me.

That's not my point. My point is that to understand a fairly rudimentary topic using only Wikipedia you already have to understand post-grad mathemarics concepts because the derivation and terminology is needlessly contrived because the editors are usually post-grads writing as though the article is for other post-grads. There are countless examples but I'm on my phone at the moment.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#135

Post by nsajko »

aerosmile wrote: post #40

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…

> Add to that a surprisingly under-the-radar company culture which has avoided any major blow ups despite its community wielding so much leverage over the world's education and having to make a lot of difficult calls on a daily basis.

There's been and still is plenty of controversy regarding both the Wikimedia Foundation and its relationship to the community of volunteers. In fact I'd say the whole thing's kind of rotten, because of many complicated issues.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#136

Post by ceilingcorner »

Is there an easy way to browse past versions of Wikipedia? I’m aware of the Wayback Machine, but that only works for a particular article.

I ask because it’s become increasingly obvious that articles are changed to fit the contemporary zeitgeist. Writers that died a century ago are recast into different people, depending on the popular ideology of the day. The choice of acceptable sources is also pretty disappointing. This problem is unique to the internet and doesn’t exist with hardback encyclopedias; one can still buy a hardback set of Britannica circa 1900.

Once 2050 comes around, I’d like to be able to read the 2010 version of Wikipedia, not the one deemed acceptable by the powers that be.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#137

Post by Kim_Bruning »

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…

I think it sometimes depends on the area you are looking for information in.

In general an encyclopedia helps you solve the search paradox (That is: You can't find anything unless you already know something about it).

* If you use it to find information about things you are already very familiar with, you'll be disappointed.

* If you use it directly as a source for things you are not familiar with, you will be mislead.

However, if you use your encyclopedia (Britannica , Wikipedia, Encarta) as a jumping off point to find search terms and sources, you'll find it to be most useful indeed.

In short, an encyclopedia is more like a richer dictionary, rather than a primary source of truth. (it isn't called a tertiary source for nothing!)

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#138

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

elliotec wrote: post #128
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> anyone who has ever edited wikipedia can tell you Citation needed. Come on. You're retorting request for data on an anecdote with "other people also have anecdotes"

Okay okay. If you want to know how wikipedia feels about different news sources, they have a very nice article about it. It's even color coded. Green is considered reliable. Red is considered unreliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...

So for instance, Wikipedia is seriously lacking in its cryptocurrency articles because you can't use coindesk or coin telegraph, even though they provide better coverage than CNBC and Bloomberg.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#139

Post by _hyrb »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #133
_hyrb wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SECTION 1. Title: This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." > SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. If you donate a dollar to supporting this you're 𝚙̶𝚛̶𝚘̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚋̶𝚕̶𝚢̶ a dick. Edit: You're definitely a dick if you donate a dollar…

he's not a dick, he's just a christian

You're right. I forgot that christians and dicks are mutually exclusive.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#140

Post by [deleted] »

aerosmile wrote: post #40

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN