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

361–370 of 391 posts

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#361

Post by renewiltord »

mxcrossb wrote: post #43

I just opened up google maps and zoomed in on a random town: Mt. Pleasant Iowa. If I search it on google, on the top of the page is a snippet from Wikipedia. The top result is a link to Wikipedia. The second is the actual town website. This is what I find fascinating about the project. We’re more interested in reading a secondary source compiled by random people, than the actual primary source! I think it says a lot…

This is normal. What is exhaust data for the primary source is primary data for the secondary source.

For data you always want to go to the guy for whom the data he's giving you is the thing he does.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#362

Post by renewiltord »

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…

I think you misunderstand the purpose of a summary of a person . It isn't P(think of this subject | think of this person), it's P(think of this person | think of this subject).

Likewise, in a summary of a subject, a person would show up if P(think of this subject | think of this person) shows up.

So, for instance, Nelson Mandela shows up in the intro to Apartheid and vice versa; Pi shows up in Fabrice Bellard, but Bellard doesn't show up in Pi; Poor Richard's Almanack links to Benjamin Franklin but Benjamin Franklin doesn't mention PRA in its summary.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#363

Post by bawolff »

kortilla wrote: post #348
bawolff wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the early days most people outside of wikipedia assumed that nobody would contribute to such a project without being compensated, that wikipedia is a communist pipe dream etc. The quote is meant as a play on the quote how communism works in theory but not in practise.

Why would it be called a communist pipe dream? It’s not mandated by the government and doesn’t use tax revenue. Open source already existed and was thriving so I’m still not getting why there was any doubt. Seems like it would have just been FUD from the encyclopedia industry and people who didn’t know about open source.

Well for starters some americans think biden is a commie, so its not like logic really comes into play when americans use "communist" as an insult.

That said, i dont think tax revenue supported infrastructure is really the definition of communism either.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#364

Post by mhh__ »

kortilla wrote: post #345
mhh__ wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But all the citations are going to mention that or it's just another chemical. The average HN-er seems be more right wing than in most comment sections, so I was curious whether balanced means "fits my politics" or the more subtle "I'm only asking questions about the election"-ing on individual articles e.g. I could see the length of the Trump-Russia article annoying a few people here who seem to believe it's complet…

> But all the citations are going to mention that or it's just another chemical. No they aren’t. All you need to do is cite all of the material that was used for its initial approval before they knew about the problems. Another example to help illustrate. The Boeing 737 MAX had a well-cited full article before the MCAS issues were known. Unbalanced moderation could just revert any future edits that tried to add in th…

> All you’re stating is that you have confirmation bias and don’t like seeing ideas you disagree with.

Well ideas that I think are factually wrong, yes. HN is the only place on the internet where I find myself regularly having to prove that Julian Assange isn't necessarily a saint and that Donald Trump is corrupt.

Also, if (let's say you're right) it is merely confirmation bias - surely that means that we can infer that I have at least identified a difference, which given that I am an almost card-carrying capitalist should illuminate that I'm not marx-reading perpetual-protestor.

Hackernews doesn't have a partisan right-wing (it's poor terminology, but it's getting late) bias, but there is an extremely contrarian streak in the bowels of almost any not-yet flagged thread involving politics. For example, the Parler thread is not flagged, the Capitol Attack thread was flagged almost immediately and then dang resurrected it.

I recognize by name quite a few people on this site, I'm able to read the room. After all I'm still here at least every day.

Also, Basic Income is not left-wing policy in any way at all unless your litmus test for that is caring about poor people at all - it's effectively submitting to the free market which isn't exactly sporting for most socialists.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#365

Post by i_love_limes »

einpoklum wrote: post #352
i_love_limes wrote: post #250

I'll add my own anecdote. I have donated to Wikipedia sporadically over the years, and they asked me to take part in a sort of round table interview / qualitative study. In a room of other Wikipedia donators , maybe 1/3 of the people there didn't know that the information was entirely community driven, and when they learned, a handful of didn't think it was a good idea! It just shows how much Wikipedia is just taken…

> maybe 1/3 of the people there didn't know that the information was entirely community driven Maybe because it's not entirely community driven. It is somewhat community driven.

Apologies, the distinction wasn't some Vs all, it was that they hadn't even considered how the information got there. Then when they found out, they were immediately sceptical of the idea. Which was hilarious.

But also, unless you have a much better understanding than me, it is community driven. Even those who have some official capacity at Wikipedia only got there through countless hours of being a good community member

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#366

Post by PopePompus »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #296
nsajko wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An issue is that most well-meaning contributors very soon learn to keep off controversial pages, because it's simply not enjoyable to constantly fight over the content. The fact is: resolving disputes takes much time and usually the party with more time on their hands and more "meat-puppets" and allies wins. Also, making enemies from among the "editors" is both unpleasant and inconvenient for possible future efforts…

If the percentage of pages that are considered controversial grows every year... wouldn’t that eventually mean every page will be controversial and thus not attract well-meaning contributors?

I don't think so. There is a vast number of pages describing things like astronomical objects, types of tropical fish, species of fungus, etc. Conversations among editors about articles in those long tails tend to be friendly and civil. Just stay away from articles about "My Little Pony".

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#367

Post by luxuryballs »

ghaff wrote: post #341
luxuryballs wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t donate in good conscience though because they do somewhat have a general tone and worldview that seems to be pervasive and heavily moderated. Wish there was a forkable version of Wikipedia so all views and angles can be allowed to co-exist, no need for a digital encyclopedia to be so skeuomorphic.

You're basically describing Google Knol. What you end up with is a bunch of people publishing often self-promotional, biased, or just plain bad articles.

Sounds like the UX and the concept needs more refinement. Also I wouldn’t let Google anywhere near such a product.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#368

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

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

The downside of using links referencing sources is many of them go away. Is there not some way to just tie it to the way back machine instead?

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#369

Post by gopkarthik »

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #368
shepherdjerred wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The downside of using links referencing sources is many of them go away. Is there not some way to just tie it to the way back machine instead?

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot Wikipedia already tries to add all referenced pages to Internet Archive.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#370

Post by nsajko »

bawolff wrote: post #189
nsajko wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here, I'll fix that for you: * Wikipedia works in theory, but not in practice (as soon as you scratch the surface). - The problem is that there are many good pages, but that just lulls one out of the necessary skepticism. * Try the Wikipedia sources that are hopefully on the bottom of each page instead. Also search on Stack Exchange and Reddit for book recommendations. * Wikipedia: the Internet’s greatest reason to f…

Its snarky and unrelated to the point the original comment was making.

Now I see that I indeed was snarky and I'm not happy about it.

I should have simply said that all three points are completely unsubstantiated.

Post reply on HN