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

301–310 of 391 posts

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#301

Post by rfrey »

elliotec wrote: post #118
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) Russian: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=htt...

Fascinating. The most interesting thing of these differences is that they're saying the same thing,but the agenda is clear in that saying the same thing is more positive or negative depending on the language. Russian > Gab is an English-speaking social network . Gab is described as being tolerant of different patriotic groups [5] and a safe haven for communities that would be restricted or blocked on other social net…

A translation to “nationalistic” instead of “patriotic” makes the difference less pronounced, although the point still stands.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#302

Post by kubanczyk »

canofbars wrote: post #229
iamcreasy wrote: post #214

Do anybody has any hypothesis on why there hasn't been any successful Wikipedia copycat? I know Google attempted their variant called Knol( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol ).

Usually when you build a clone, you base it on fixing the problems of the original? What problems in wikipedia could a clone possibly fix since the main issues with wikipedia is getting people to agree on what should be included and I don't see how that could be solved.

For example, a fork could make all articles into rabbit holes like:

  - really simple and short article
  - expanded version of the same article
  - even more expanded version
  - ...
With an easy (contextual!) navigation up and down the stack.

The benefit would be faster learning.

The initial levels would be clearly marked that they contain simplifications to the point of being half-truths and the version that is 100% "honest" would be also clearly marked. (For the cases when the truth is so complex that it becomes clearly anti-educational. I don't mean controversial/political topics.)

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#304

Post by zyemuzu »

tim333 wrote: post #261
zadokshi wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it deep da on your age. Some among us who are older remember what it used to be like when people were much less political and less activism was occurring. These days basic concrete facts are subject to debate.

Though most of the fake news anti vax type stuff is not on Wikipedia but spreads more through the likes of Facebook and Reddit. Wikipedia is pretty conservative about sources and evidence.

Conservative in the traditional sense of the term, i.e. a longstanding mainstream source. If we're considering media companies as the source of the reference, ethics and impartiality simply no longer exist.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#305

Post by ant6n »

teloli wrote: post #120
matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

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

Not even that subtle. For instance, declaring that Taiwan is a country despite the fact that it isn’t recognized as such by most of the world. That was such a big deal that it was met with triumph by Taiwanese media: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3948149 Don’t get me wrong, I support the cause of Taiwanese independence, but facts are facts. I also think that the Basque Country should be independent, and yet i…

The „cause of Taiwanese independence“. That’s a bit silly, since it’s really the PRC that split off from China and Taiwan is the continuation of the old republic. Did Taiwan in the 70s, when other countries changed their ties to China to recognize the PRC but not Taiwan, on the pressure of the more powerful PRC, suddenly lose its Independence? All the complicated history and political issues you can read about on Wikipedia btw.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#306

Post by bobthepanda »

bawolff wrote: post #241
aerosmile wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware of many of their issues, especially on smaller international sites. But even so, on a risk-adjusted basis I think they've managed to avoid more drama than other teams would have pulled off given the environment they are in.

That is interesting. As someone who used to work for the wikimedia foundation, it felt like there was a constant stream of drama. I guess when you are in the middle of it, it feels more intense than it actually is.

There’s also the matter of scale and money.

Wikipedia drama generally seems to happen less often and affect fewer “big” personalities and their money, than say Youtube and Google giving their content creators whiplash over whatever the new policy change is.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#307

Post by froh »

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…

What does "non-follow links" mean?

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#308

Post by pvorb »

germanier wrote: post #297
aerosmile wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever encountered on Wikipedia a sentence like this: "...because a blue whale did..." rather than "...because a blue whale did..." Obviously, the latter version would have been more useful, and I find it difficult to believe that a human being would have made such a mistake. Don't get me wrong - such instances are rare, but they do happen and are an indicator that not all links are generated manually. I don't…

There are actual humans placing such links to the point that there is an explicit rule against doing that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:SEAOFBLUE

Nice! Didn't know about such a rule.

Maybe in legitimate cases, it'd already help if Wikipedia underlined links, so you can see if it's one or multiple links.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#309

Post by jedberg »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #102
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

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

You should point them at some of the studies that show Wikipedia is more accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#310

Post by Tijdreiziger »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #255
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…

You've got it backwards; they didn't "kill it" on SEO by making good content, good content was rewarded with high ranking search results. Even this is questionable now that google et al purposely present just enough of wikipedia's content directly in the search results to discourage you from leaving google. So in the end they (a) display ads and (b) don't get the revenue. THis is a win?

Wikipedia does not display ads.
Post reply on HN