Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#151

Post by sdoering » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #74

sdoering wrote: post #38

I think overall the wikipedia model has shown itself to be decently working. But (anecdata) I have my gripes with the way it handles evidence. My SO has a person (died already) in her family with a (relatively) short wikipedia entry. There are factual errors in the article. We know that, because we have original documents showing that the "facts" reportet in the entry are wrong. Due to the fact that the documents can…

Since this person is family, you can issue a publicly-available statement, e.g. on a website, and it will most likely qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia's policies. The point is that Wikipedia must never be a primary source for what it writes about; it just always be able to point at a source for what it says. Wikipedians' job is to broadly evaluate and curate sources, not guess at the truth of any individual…

Yeah I could do this. But I could also just accept the fact that Wikipedia isn't even willing to delete contested information when offered proof.

I don't need the facts to be in the entry. I don't care. I only care about the fake facts in there and ask myself how much of the rest of Wikipedia is also riddled with falsehoods and nobody would want to remove that if shown actual state documents that show what is wrong.

I did not want it to become a primary source. I just hoped they would remove information that has new evidence not known to the original source.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#152

Post by qiskit » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

munch117 wrote: post #145

qiskit wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Jack Copeland (2004) attributes the introduction of the term halting problem to the work of Martin Davis in the 1950s.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem Martin Davis did in the early 1950s after Turing's death. > and that the halting problem is undecidable follows trivially from that. Trivially? Took nearly 2 decades after Turing published his paper for Martin Davis to come up with the halting proble…

If you can solve the halting problem, then you can apply it to a solution checker that works by enumerating potential solutions and halting when it finds one. Therefore, if you've solved the halting problem then you've also solved the Entscheidungsproblem, and since the latter is impossible, it follows that the premise of having a solution to the halting problem is false. Yes, that does seems trivial to me. Although…

Using your logic, Alonzo Church should be credited with the Turing machine and the halting problem since he solved Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem before Turing did. If everything follows trivially from an answer to the same question, then Turing's solution follows trivially from Church.

Not sure why you are fixated on the Entscheidungsproblem. Turing's claim to fame isn't the entscheidungsproblem. If it were, nobody would know who Turing is because Church already solved the entscheidungsproblem. His contribution are the theoretical concept of Turing machines ( universal turing machines especially ) and computable numbers.

> Did Turing's original machine not have a halting state?

Are you asking me?

> You can hardly express the halting problem if you don't have the concept of halting.

He did have a concept of halting. He called them circular/unsatisfactory.

Did you even read his paper?

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#153

Post by sdoering » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

halestock wrote: post #58

sdoering wrote: post #38

I think overall the wikipedia model has shown itself to be decently working. But (anecdata) I have my gripes with the way it handles evidence. My SO has a person (died already) in her family with a (relatively) short wikipedia entry. There are factual errors in the article. We know that, because we have original documents showing that the "facts" reportet in the entry are wrong. Due to the fact that the documents can…

This is an unfortunate situation for sure, but I think I still agree with how they responded. What if they had accepted your evidence? The page still has no publicly visible references, so I (the user) have to just take the editor's word that the article is correct - I have no way to verify that information myself.

I agree. They could however remove the wrong parts.

This way they would not have the user need to trust unverifiable claims but also protect the user from learning falsehoods.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#154

Post by sdoering » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

not2b wrote: post #118

scatters wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now more than ever, Wikipedia must be publicly verifiable. That means that any claim can be checked by anyone with an Internet connection and a library card. Imagine if contested articles contained controversial facts on the basis of secret evidence? The editor made the right call.

But if the editors receive proof that a statement article is wrong, but that information can't be published on the Internet for copyright or other reasons, that means it is proven that the source of the information is wrong, so that source should be removed as unreliable at least in this case. If the rules of Wikipedia don't allow unsourced information, they don't prevent removing incorrect information that has been…

Thanks. Exactly my thought on a valid approach. One not taken by this person in this case.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#155

Post by sdoering » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #62

sdoering wrote: post #38

I think overall the wikipedia model has shown itself to be decently working. But (anecdata) I have my gripes with the way it handles evidence. My SO has a person (died already) in her family with a (relatively) short wikipedia entry. There are factual errors in the article. We know that, because we have original documents showing that the "facts" reportet in the entry are wrong. Due to the fact that the documents can…

What do you want Wikipedia to do in that circumstance, though? Just accept uncited facts based on the promise of someone on the internet? The problem with your SO's relative isn't that Wikipedia is doing something incorrect, it's that the historical record is wrong . And that sucks, but it's not something an encyclopedia is going to be able to solve. That's why we have historians.

They could see the evidence and remove the contested source. In this case they would remove a part from the entry. People wouldn't learn falsehoods. I think this would at least be better than knowingly spreading fake knowledge.

I would have welcomed that approach. And applauded them. But once he decided to let wrong facts stay as part of the entry this was a lost cause to me.

As said. I would have been more than fine if they had just deleted these parts.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#156

Post by akvadrako » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:51 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #32

akvadrako wrote: post #22

It should be possible to fork pages. If an active editor doesn't like edits they can publish their own version. The main Wikipedia owners then choose, like they do now, which editor they support as default.

You can already do this by just forking all of Wikipedia, as many people have done.

Technically yes, but the UX leaves a lot to be desired.

Forking the whole wiki just to present your own version of a few pages isn't useful. Even the basics aren't there, like being discoverable or an easy way to track upstream changes.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#157

Post by bjourne » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #27

Without specific examples this is pretty meaningless. Every now and then there are groups that try to gain control of an article or group of articles on Wikipedia (especially around big current events) and then they start looking for ways to game the system all the while bitching about how Wikipedia is 'broken'. The way I see it: Wikipedia is imperfect, but not broken, and it has developed a pretty impressive array o…

Here is a specific example: Circumcision It has the features OP complains about. Content controlled by a small number of "guardians" who knows every Wikipedia rule and policy in existence and uses them to keep outsiders out. A shockingly biased tone that omits every dissenting source. The article's guardians call them "anti-circumcisionists" and in their view, the critics objects are as valid as 9/11 conspiracy theorists'.

"Male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa." "The highest quality evidence indicates that circumcision has no impact on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure." Mentioned in the first two paragraphs. The fact that many believe that male circumcision is a grave violation of boys' rights to body autonomy is not.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#158

Post by ALittleLight » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #90

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could almost be taken word for word from an article about Mozilla. People who think 'social justice' is a bad thing seem to set really high standards for the open, independant organisations they say they support, and they're not afraid to give them some extreme tough love and undermine them at every step if they don't follow their priorities.

Social justice isn't a bad thing. Social justice instead of actually fulfilling your primary goal is. If all the bugs are closed, the product is beautiful and there's still money sloshing about, then fill your boots. Also, make sure that your donors know their donation is going to go to racial education of Arab journalists (grantee #1), and not to paying developers and server bills. The begging banners on Wikimedia s…

I think it's a bad thing by itself. With the wikipedia example - anyone can edit, editors can by anonymous or psuedonomous, and there is no preference, implicit or explicit, for race and gender. Over the years wikipedia has been built up, by volunteers, into an amazing and valuable resource.

Now, the organization controlling their work and this global good, decides that aggregate race and gender statistics are a problem. Wikipedia is a little too white, and a little too male, and that's a bad thing!

Imagine applying this reason to any other organization and any other race and gender combination. Here's a crazy idea - if you want to reduce race and gender based prejudice, start by not having clear race and gender prejudices yourself.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#159

Post by oauea » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #116

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #30

Get the Wikimedia Foundation to spend money on the technical foundation of the sites, rather than spraying millions up the wall of "racial justice". That's not me making a strawman by going straight to "omg, the SJWs", it's a exact phrase from the 3rd paragraph of the 4.5 million Knowledge Equity Fund page [1]. That, and executive pay, is where donations go, not to keeping the lights on. The running cost to keeping t…

From the first link: >The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege to create an environment that is inclusive and reflects the experiences of communities of color worldwide. What an interesting signaling statement. If you did not know what "racial equity" was, imagine trying to parse out what it is f…

Sure does sound like racism to me, just like Reddit's stance that you can't be racist against white people.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#160

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #157

jacquesm wrote: post #27

Without specific examples this is pretty meaningless. Every now and then there are groups that try to gain control of an article or group of articles on Wikipedia (especially around big current events) and then they start looking for ways to game the system all the while bitching about how Wikipedia is 'broken'. The way I see it: Wikipedia is imperfect, but not broken, and it has developed a pretty impressive array o…

Here is a specific example: Circumcision It has the features OP complains about. Content controlled by a small number of "guardians" who knows every Wikipedia rule and policy in existence and uses them to keep outsiders out. A shockingly biased tone that omits every dissenting source. The article's guardians call them "anti-circumcisionists" and in their view, the critics objects are as valid as 9/11 conspiracy theor…

I was asking the OP because I want to get an idea of what kind of articles they believe are evidence of the fact that Wikipedia is broken, not because I doubt that any such articles exist. Specifically to see what kind of angle they have. Once you report something like this to a forum like HN as being a serious enough problem that it warrants a discussion I think that party should bring their own evidence, because chances are they are just unable to push their own agenda on some pet subject. If I were to come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is broken and I'd post it to HN I would make sure to bring ample evidence.

That said, that article could certainly be improved on.

I have my own pet peeves about Wikipedia and even about some articles, but I don't think it is 'structurally broken', that requires a different level of evidence.