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

The sum of all knowledge and the sorry state of the web

christianheilmann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–187 of 187 posts

Re: The sum of all knowledge and the sorry state of the web

#181

Post by denton-scratch »

nonameking2026 wrote: post #115
denton-scratch wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you read something surprising, then you should probably check it somewhere, unless it's trivial. Snopes might be a reasonable first check.

Who fact checks the fact checkers ? Once you read something totally unreasonable in a fact check, why should you go there as a source of truth anymore? Wikipedia is probably a better bet - at least you have history of edits and sources.

Agreed - I'd personally check out Wikipedia first. But it takes time to go through the edit histories, talk pages and sources. I'm retired, so I have time; but for a quick sanity check, Snopes isn't a dreadful choice.

Re: The sum of all knowledge and the sorry state of the web

#182

Post by krapp »

rchaud wrote: post #180
mountainb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. There are vast archives of newspaper articles accessible through a web interface. You just need library access. The free, open web is mostly just a spam ocean, but if you make an effort to access the services that catalog useful information, it’s still very useful. The Google web is shit, though.

> You just need library access. Assuming you live in a place where public libraries are well-funded and can provide such amenities.

Yes. A conversation about the utility of the internet as an archive of news material presupposes access to the internet in some form. But in the Western world at least, notwithstanding certain American locales where right-wing activists defund libraries which carry wrongthink pro LGBT, trans or anti-racist literature, access to a public library is not uncommon even in rural or poor locales.

Re: The sum of all knowledge and the sorry state of the web

#183

Post by denton-scratch »

this2shallPass wrote: post #164
inkywatcher wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that your way of proving anti-Zionist sentiment is to demonstrate that there are quantifiably more leftist editors on Wikipedia. That does not demonstrate your thesis of anti-Israeli bias. Plenty of people who at least claim to be leftists are profuse in their support of Israel. Neither should it surprise that a scholarly endeavor for bored young people on the internet tends to tilt leftward: th…

> I find it interesting that your way of proving anti-Zionist sentiment is to demonstrate that there are quantifiably more leftist editors on Wikipedia. That does not demonstrate your thesis of anti-Israeli bias. Plenty of people who at least claim to be leftists are profuse in their support of Israel. It’s not definitive proof of anti-Israel bias - it is, however, evidence . As opposed to the unsubstantiated asserti…

> As opposed to the unsubstantiated assertion I responded to.

I'm not going to try to substantiate it; if you're not already aware that Wikimedia is owned and run by a self-confessed Zionist, you can look it up for yourself. I don't engage with the Zionists on Wikipedia; it's a waste of time, you can't win. Some Zionist admin will come along and declare that you lost the dispute. I'm not inclined to take up arms here either; it's against the rules, and anyway, in matters of this sort, you can't defeat your adversary by producing evidence or substantiation. This is an issue that people on both sides are strongly emotionally engaged in.

Re: The sum of all knowledge and the sorry state of the web

#184

Post by this2shallPass »

denton-scratch wrote: post #183
this2shallPass wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it interesting that your way of proving anti-Zionist sentiment is to demonstrate that there are quantifiably more leftist editors on Wikipedia. That does not demonstrate your thesis of anti-Israeli bias. Plenty of people who at least claim to be leftists are profuse in their support of Israel. It’s not definitive proof of anti-Israel bias - it is, however, evidence . As opposed to the unsubstantiated asserti…

> As opposed to the unsubstantiated assertion I responded to. I'm not going to try to substantiate it; if you're not already aware that Wikimedia is owned and run by a self-confessed Zionist, you can look it up for yourself. I don't engage with the Zionists on Wikipedia; it's a waste of time, you can't win. Some Zionist admin will come along and declare that you lost the dispute. I'm not inclined to take up arms here…

> Anything to do with Israel/Palestine/West Bank is unreliable [and in favor of Israel]

This is the claim that needs substantiation, not that a key Wikipedia person supports Zionism or identifies as a Zionist, or that various employees or volunteers support Israel. Those other claims don't seem significant.

The opposite is also true - that various volunteers are antagonistic towards Israel. It's also likely that some employees are antagonistic towards Israel. You can find plenty of people's experiences discussing the same pattern you describe but with different political views - some antagonistic admin coming along and declaring that you lost the dispute.

Various "bosses" at Wikipedia have different views, ideologies and identities. Given that, what on Wikipedia can be trusted, and what can't be? What's special about views towards Israel?

Evidence is useful, but when viewing people as "adversaries", and if trying to "defeat" them in general, the game is already diminished or lost - for most everyone involved. Little productive conversation can occur.

> This is an issue that people on both sides are strongly emotionally engaged in.

Yes. But that is true of many issues in the world.

Re: The sum of all knowledge and the sorry state of the web

#185

Post by nonameking2026 »

denton-scratch wrote: post #181
nonameking2026 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who fact checks the fact checkers ? Once you read something totally unreasonable in a fact check, why should you go there as a source of truth anymore? Wikipedia is probably a better bet - at least you have history of edits and sources.

Agreed - I'd personally check out Wikipedia first. But it takes time to go through the edit histories, talk pages and sources. I'm retired, so I have time; but for a quick sanity check, Snopes isn't a dreadful choice.

Can you fact check snopes in your spare time :)

Re: The sum of all knowledge and the sorry state of the web

#186

Post by b112 »

mountainb wrote: post #79
b112 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, old paper newspapers, which are very thin now, and vanishing. For web based newspapers, good luck trusting longevity there, just because the library has a free interface to an api...

There are scans of old newspapers going back ages, and current ones also. Stop using the web, it sucks ass. Use ProQuest and other similar databases. Web searches are wastes of time for most things. Google wants to train you to believe research is not a skill and that you can get usually get good information from the open web. Neither of those points are true.

You may not read this it has been a couple of days, but thought I should reply.

I am not sure why you replied to my comment l, with talk about not using the web, google, etc.

After all, I specifically said that trusting web bawed properties is an issue.

And you seem to have missed a key part of my comment, the state of paper based newspapers today.

They're dying.

Huge, multi-millon dollar, national newspaper corps, which used to have Saturday newspapers 2 or 3cm thick, when I was a kid, are now a mere 1/2 cm if lucky.

Many local newspapers are gone. Just gone.

The ones which remain, are barely standing on their feet.

So my comment, re archival, is that old methods of scanning phycial newspapers are not viable, and getting worse yearly.

Re: The sum of all knowledge and the sorry state of the web

#187

Post by wslh »

danrocks wrote: post #106
wslh wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time you see people (mainly young people) learning at a faster pace watching videos.

[Citation Needed]

I haven't written a paper about this, this is an observation looking at kids and youngsters around me, mainly, economically speaking, middle class and also lower middle class. My sample is around 100.

I also see issues with reading comprehension but not video comprehension. I am not saying that things are better now, just saying that observations should be balanced. A person interested and with attitude towards a specific topic can navigate the learning path with more resources and less friction.

Post reply on HN