Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 301 posts

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#241

Post by KerrAvon »

mardifoufs wrote: post #67
legitster wrote: post #10

I'm not sure if I share the same assessment. I am amazed at how robust your typical Wikipedia page is despite the chaos that goes into writing it. Given that it's not possible to make a version of reality that everyone is happy with, I think Wikipedia comes pretty dang close.

This is a good example of an amazingly bad article with the worst type of wiki lawyering on the talk page. It basically still has the same conclusion in the lead as when it was originally created, and most of the claims/leaks against Hunter were considered "false"/dinsinfo... But now that those laptop leaks were either confirmed by different reputable sources, it more or less indirectly calls most of the claims true…

> But now that those laptop leaks were either confirmed by different reputable sources

Citation needed

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#242

Post by halestock »

sdoering wrote: post #153
halestock wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I think that's a fair criticism.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#243

Post by noxer »

windmark wrote: post #216
noxer wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read it all but wasn't hard to find "mistakes" in that wiki article For example: "Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland and Singapore have agreed to sanctions." Clearly a misrepresentation of Swiss neutrality. The news outlets all over the world posted this and various similar claims over the last week and wiki picks it up. Some news articles even straight out tell you that Sw…

Can you elaborate with sources for someone who have only read the main stream media about this?

"Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland [...] have agreed to sanctions."

This implies that Switzerland neutrality is somehow relevant while in reality it is not. It implies sanctions DESPITE neutrality.

https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebers...

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#244

Post by enterpriseyWiki »

zamalek wrote: post #171
johannes1234321 wrote: post #34

I think Wikipedia is mostly good contentwise. Of course there are two extremes where there are problems: disputed topics (especially contemporary political topics) and niche topics receiving little to no attention. I think for both an improvment can be made by improving the view on the editing history. Showing what kind of editors (new accounts or ong term members? Editing only few articles or across the board? etc.)…

> I think Wikipedia is mostly good contentwise. Wikipedia politics is insane[1], and this power hunger can lead to objectively incorrect information being defended and sustained. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_cabals

>This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#245

Post by enterpriseyWiki »

qiskit wrote: post #137
munch117 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to tell us who did prove it then? While the 1936 paper, "On Computable Numbers", doesn't explicitly mention the halting problem, it does cover the Entscheidungsproblem, and that the halting problem is undecidable follows trivially from that.

"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…

I would recommend making those points on the article's talk page instead of (or in addition to) on here.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#246

Post by enterpriseyWiki »

captainmuon wrote: post #109

I think this has to be solved culturally. Wikipedia would have to have a radical cultural dedication against "cliques" and sectarianism and towards openness. I also don't like the maxime of Wikipedia to prefer "sourced" information, rather than "true" information. Something can be wrong, but if reputable sources claim it, then it goes in WP. I know in the English speaking world the term "truth" has gotten some proble…

No post body was provided.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#247

Post by alecco »

noxer wrote: post #215
legitster wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an example, I want to point people to the page I have been spending a lot of time on as of late: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... Is the information on this page perfect? Obviously not. But this single page probably represents the best up-to-date summary of information you will find on the internet. And I can only imagine the thankless work volunteer editors put into making it cohere…

I didn't read it all but wasn't hard to find "mistakes" in that wiki article For example: "Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland and Singapore have agreed to sanctions." Clearly a misrepresentation of Swiss neutrality. The news outlets all over the world posted this and various similar claims over the last week and wiki picks it up. Some news articles even straight out tell you that Sw…

A bigger issue I see with that Wikipedia page is it doesn't list the blocking of regulatory approval of the finished Nord Stream 2 as a cause. It's only mentioned way down and more like "wet streets cause rain".

Of course, even Russian propaganda doesn't mention it. Sending kids to die to a neighbor country because of a gas pipeline doesn't have the same ring to it. They go with some kind of motherland nonsense. It's just money. Always is.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#248

Post by Qub3d »

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…

The problem is that results in some users with privileged knowledge and other users without. The OP has been using language like "they" to refer to editors as some unified, privileged bloc but that is incorrect, and part of the issue. (If they have found some specific users to be "gatekeeping" content, that is a problem and there exist mechanisms to redress that[0].)

Ultimately, if the OP wants "the editors" to see information to add to the article, they will effectively be publishing the information publicly, since anyone can be an editor, and there is no mechanism for protected sources that are available to only some special cadre.

That breaks the Wikipedia model -- in article namespace, everyone should be able to review the same source information. The concept here is called "verifiability" for a reason. Wikipedia's strength is that you can ultimately go check and confirm the source.

By writing articles from privileged information, Wikipedia effectively becomes a primary source on a subject, which is a big no-no for an encyclopedia in general, and for Wikipedia specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

It can be frustrating, but it is a necessary minimum. As to perceived accuracy, Wikipedia has a General Disclaimer[1] for a reason.

If this all makes you less trustful of Wikipedia... good! I can't speak for every wikipedian, but I personally welcome skepticism and encourage users to verify anything they have doubts on.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#249

Post by lucb1e »

sdoering wrote: post #148
lucb1e wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an editor [...] stated he could only allow changes to the "facts" if my SO could point to an online source (a credible one he said). That's plainly false, how many Wikipedia articles have (annoying, I'll admit) offline references to books, papers, and other things that are only available under specific terms and conditions, typically after some payment? You don't have to own anything's copyright to reference it. (I…

> That's plainly false, Thanks for denying experience. You could have said: "That should not be the case." But yet he kept denying changes. > offline references to books, papers, and other things that are only available under specific terms and conditions, typically after some payment I was talking about birth certificates, official but personal documents, things like birthday greetings personally signed by Erich Hon…

> Thanks for denying experience

That's not what I meant. Was already thinking whether this was clear enough or if I should edit... apparently I should have edited. Apologies.

I meant it the way that pxeger1 mentioned in their sibling comment: the person denying your (SO's) edits was saying something that is clearly not true.

Re: Ask HN: How can we fix Wikipedia?

#250

Post by Lascaille »

KerrAvon wrote: post #240
claytongulick wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing this sort of obvious political bias does is discredit Wikipedia and push readers to less reputable sites for information. Like many others on here, I prefer to go directly to multiple biased sources like npr, CNN, breitbart, nypost because I understand their bias and can sort through it to tease out information. The thing that I find the most distasteful is any source that purports to be unbiased, but…

What bias do you think CNN has? Genuinely curious which part of the spectrum you think they belong to, because I could make arguments for either side. Breitbart is an editorial/propaganda magazine, not a news source. Why would you go there for anything?

>What bias do you think CNN has?

CNN was openly anti-Trump for the entire administration, as in, instructions were literally passed down that reporting should be slanted in such a way as to taint him.

It isn't a case of having to think they have a bias, it's a case of literally being told that bias is part of their policy.

It wasn't hard to spot, either. Their reportage during the Trump administration was absurd. You'd have headlines and first-paragraphs that were contradicted by the entire rest of the article; the headline and intro para made Trump look bad, the rest of the article begrudgingly attempted to convey the facts. It was utter nonsense.

Post reply on HN