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

School vs. Wikipedia

ratfactor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 501 posts

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#411

Post by nailer »

akolbe wrote: post #238
nailer wrote: post #120

This is Wikipedia's fault. - Wikipedia know people mistakenly cite Wikipedia itself - Wikipedia agree that people should not do this - Wikipedia had the opportunity to educate Wikipedia's audience not to do this. - Wikipedia has not educated Wikipedia's audience not to cite Wikipedia itself. What they should have done: > We hope you find Wikipedia useful. Remember to never cite Wikipedia itself! Instead cite the webs…

To be fair, they did and do. Every page contains a link at the bottom to a "Disclaimer", the first two paragraphs of which read as follows: "Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please…

I’ve think people aren’t seeing the disclaimer, rather than ignoring it. An on screen notification that appears for first time users or when text is selected are possible user interfaces that would ensure people understand.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#412

Post by llanowarelves »

howenterprisey wrote: post #386
Test0129 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's transparent and unfortunately that's exactly why we know we can't trust it. If you want an eye opening experience pick something in the news that might be scientific. Say, COVID. Then run a correlation between the release of news articles and the frequency of edits to Wikipedia. In theory, this provides the most up to date information. In reality, Wikipedia is a disinformation farm. Contributors may think they a…

Leaving aside your other points, it's beyond ludicrous to claim that Steven Pruitt controls anything on Wikipedia. Please take more care that you yourself don't repeat random misinformation about Wikipedia.

Why do you need 100% iron-fist control to steer an outcome (which doesn't have to be conscious)? You just need enough influence. A little nudge here, a little nudge there. Especially when you are making millions of nudges. And he's not the only one doing it. Some nation-states and NGOs also hire people to do favorable Wikipedia edits as well.

That's like saying billionaires, corporations, media etc don't have a lot of influence (or control) over elections because everyone can theoretically donate money, outvote them etc. too.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#413

Post by throwaway09223 »

akolbe wrote: post #382
throwaway09223 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are drastically underestimating how absolutely bonkers the 1970 Britannica edition was in terms of (using your example) Social Sciences. I did this analysis long ago and i don't have the set in front of me, but there absolutely were hoaxes and nonsense which were believed to be true (or which fit the prevailing narrative) in 1970. Not being up to date isn't just about incorporating new information. Fields…

Perhaps so, but why choose the 1970 edition, rather than one from the 1990s, or the current online one? At any rate, here is a quote from a BBC journalist: "In the Wikipedia gullibility stakes, no one is infallible. That means any journalist in any newsroom will likely get a sharp slap across the head from an editor for treating Wikipedia with anything but total scepticism (you can imagine the kicking I've taken over…

It's simply what my grandparents had in my home, back when I still cared about school and when Wikipedia was relatively new. I remember being astounded that this ancient crappy thing would be accepted, while wikipedia would not be.

You know in the world of tech they have a similar saying: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."

This does not mean IBM is either a superior choice, or a wise choice.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#414

Post by chx »

In a lot of things historical, Wikipedia is overrun by, let's not mince words, neonazis. If you want to be more polite, people with a very strong yearning of their nations past to be really great, science be damned. The thing is, everything needs to be sourced but the veracity of the source, especially if it is not in English is not verified. That's because of the "no credentials are recognized" policy of Wikipedia which makes every historian stay far away from this cesspool of trolls. And since it's a clique, it's impossible to fix anything, edits will be reverted and there's nowhere to turn. I gave up, too, long ago.

I was adding the proper spelling of an ancient Persian vizier and scholar and my edit was reverted with "The other names in the lead are not supposed to have custom alphabets or whatever they're called". It's a Persian article and you refuse "custom alphabets or whatever they're called"?? I am out of here.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#415

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

melagonster wrote: post #399
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a simple idea that AFAIK has not been tried. Limit "External Links" to only websites found in Google Scholar. More specifically, limit them to only academic sources. (Maybe limiting to .edu or country-specific educational TLDs, e.g., ac.uk, etc. is better. I realise Scholar is hardly a reliable filter for non-commercial sources, given Google's incentives. Remember "Knol".) This could be an option. Maybe an HT…

I understand your needs, but where people can find a academic resources to say their basketball team won a game?

Using Wikipedia for sports scores. Never knew about that.

I use it sometimes for historical scores from past championships but beyond that I have plenty of non-Wikipedia sources for real-time or recent scores.

Nor can I say I have ever used Wikipedia to find sites that publish scores, either.

But maybe I just have not discovered how Wikipedia can be used for basketball scores. No doubt there are better sources for basketbal scores.

Anyway, I fail to see how giving someone the option to restrict Wikipedia "Related Links" and "References" to, say, academic ones would interfere with the status quo. It would not stop anyone from getting basketball scores by any manner they choose. Obviously do not enable an option to restrict to academic sources if looking for sports scores.

It's fascinating to see comments like this that try to argue against hypothetical options (I have seen this sort of comment before) because software and "tech" companies have a long history of forcing new "features" on people who never asked for them. People are not even given a choice. "Do you want this new feature?" is not a question that is ever asked.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#416

Post by chris_wot »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #191
aimor wrote: post #89

Every now and then I like to read through Wikipedia pages for things I know more than the average person on. It keeps me skeptical of the things I read on there. For people unfamiliar with a subject (students) I think Wikipedia pages are misleading, poorly organized, and sometimes wrong. That doesn't make Wikipedia useless, but the author's best advice is to use Wikipedia as a map to other sources of information. I d…

When was the last time you read through a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica? Have you done an apples to apples comparison? No encyclopedia is perfect, but as far as I can tell the "standard" encyclopedias are a lot worse. My grandparents had bought a copy of Britannica decades ago and they had something like 50 years of its yearbooks. I would cite it sometimes and no one at school batted an eye. I remember reading thro…

Yes, but good authors are routinely removed from Wikipedia by a mob of less than great editors. Happens all the time. Happened to me.

For a sample of my work, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Baker

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#417

Post by chris_wot »

chx wrote: post #414

In a lot of things historical, Wikipedia is overrun by, let's not mince words, neonazis. If you want to be more polite, people with a very strong yearning of their nations past to be really great, science be damned. The thing is, everything needs to be sourced but the veracity of the source, especially if it is not in English is not verified. That's because of the "no credentials are recognized" policy of Wikipedia w…

I don't know why this is being downvoted. This is happening in lots of ways, small and large.

To be successful on Wikipedia, you need to know how to game the system.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#419

Post by chris_wot »

nailer wrote: post #411
akolbe wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, they did and do. Every page contains a link at the bottom to a "Disclaimer", the first two paragraphs of which read as follows: "Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please…

I’ve think people aren’t seeing the disclaimer, rather than ignoring it. An on screen notification that appears for first time users or when text is selected are possible user interfaces that would ensure people understand.

That's a completely unreasonable idea. Are you also suggesting that Google should also have a prominent disclaimer that appears before they give results that their search results may not be accurate, or might be misleading?

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#420

Post by chris_wot »

floppydisc wrote: post #252

Just out of curiosity; has anyone here contributed to Wikipedia?

I did. I invented the [citation needed] template. I have written countless articles and done more maintenance work than most. I was recently banned indefinitely by a mob.
Post reply on HN