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

How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

cambridge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 669 posts

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#481

Post by seti0Cha »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #461
seti0Cha wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck are you even talking about? I'm not running experiments, I'm trying to have a conversation. Do you or do you not believe the fediverse is ideologically homogeneous? I see people here arguing that it is, but that it is justifiably so. I don't see anyone clearly claiming it's not, but someone might. I think it is homogeneous for the very reasons you gave (i.e. people are not obliged to propagate speech th…

I'm saying that while believing in unfalsifiable beliefs or refusing to falsify them is certainly anyone's prerogative, I have to ask, why would anyone want to do that?

You're cracking me up. I should stop responding, but I can't help but wonder if you'll respond with this same sort of thing even if I say random stuff. I think pumpkin ravioli is overrated. What do you say to that?

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#483

Post by malcolmgreaves »

dingnuts wrote: post #470
adr1an wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gender remark was totally uncalled for, off topic, and not backed by any evidence (other than your personal experience in the form of "I suspect"). Maybe you can rethink what you had in mind. But please don't take my comment as a platform to expand on it.. I'm already regretting pointing this out... But it seemed almost sexist..

I thought it was an interesting hypothesis for why I see women actively avoid the sort of debate spaces online that I seek out. They are all absolutely dominated by men and it doesn't matter what part of the political spectrum the particular echo chamber embodies, this happens in both leftist and right-wing spaces. Is it sexist to say that women seek out conflict less than men? Mens' brains are literally doused in a…

[flagged]

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#484

Post by Rebelgecko »

ivanhoe wrote: post #221

My (admittedly personal & anecdotal) impression of Wikipedia is that the objectivity of the content highly depends on the subject - particularly anything that touches on more recent historical events and public/political figures continues to be of the debatable objectivity (at least on the subjects that I'm familiar with enough to notice the problem).

Someone recently pointed out the incongruity between the English wikipedia article about the "Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion" and the Arabic Wikipedia article about the "مجزرة مستشفى المعمداني" (Baptist hospital massacre). Without sidelining the thread discussion with unproductive arguments about the conflict, I found it really fascinating how the two articles can paint such different pictures, just by picking different sources or in some cases even using the same sources but organizing the information differently (eg which disputed facts get to be in the article's infobox)

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#485

Post by doublepg23 »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #483
dingnuts wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was an interesting hypothesis for why I see women actively avoid the sort of debate spaces online that I seek out. They are all absolutely dominated by men and it doesn't matter what part of the political spectrum the particular echo chamber embodies, this happens in both leftist and right-wing spaces. Is it sexist to say that women seek out conflict less than men? Mens' brains are literally doused in a…

[flagged]

Do you believe men and women are blank slates?

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#486

Post by Kye »

baja_blast wrote: post #467
bebop404 wrote: post #434

One thing (perhaps the thing) that makes Wikipedia great is that it doesn't seek the truth. Instead, it seeks verifiability. This means that editors don't have to be experts to write articles, which is the main reason the site is useful at all. The truth can be very elusive. So it makes sense to move that burden to the sources.

So when the sources contain inaccurate information then Wikipedia does so as well. I don't see how that is a good thing people view Wikipedia as the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica which was curated by experts. Wikipedia should strive for the truth since finding truthful and factual information is becoming increasingly more difficult online.

Pre-Wikipedia encyclopedias could be worse! And their inaccuracies could last a long time since not everyone could afford or wanted to update their entire set. You also had no way to see the discussion behind claims to help inform your interpretation.

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#487

Post by malcolmgreaves »

depressedpanda wrote: post #477
anon25783 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially women (I suspect). Not to be a woke feminist culture warrior on main but, that seems misogynistic.

Why? The claim was that women to a higher degree find "direct, robust speech" alienating. Disregarding whether it's true or not, and my own reservations against using "robust" as a descriptor, it looks like a fairly neutral statement to me.

> The claim was that women to a higher degree find "direct, robust speech" alienating.

I'll assume that (1) you're not sexist and (2) you're asking why is this claim rooted in sexism.

The nature of this claim is rooted in an idea that any observable behaviors between genders is due to the nature of genders themselves. It is not worded to indicate that its root is, for instance, a commentary about how _external factors_ exert different influence on individuals due to their gender.

This is the nature of misogyny. The invalid logical implication that gender controls behavior. It's not actually a causal relationship. It's purely correlation.

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#488

Post by UtopiaPunk »

local_crmdgeon wrote: post #252
matkoniecz wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to pitch OpenStreetMap as another example (to be clear there are also banners about donating, but it is smaller and not misleading one)

Yes, but I have no idea how to participate in OSM and I'm a huge map nerd. Not true of Wiki

I only recently started editing in OpenStreetMap and its fun! The OSM has a wiki with lots of documentation, and there is page on how to get started here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Getting_Involved

I find working from a computer the most satisfying to contribute. I mostly just make updates on the map for my town, the places I really engage with. Biking is a new hobby of mine, so I've updated bicycle lanes and paths, as well as crosswalks that I come across. I also sometimes update local business information and such.

As someone else noted, Andriod also has the StreetComplete app, which is great for making simple and fast edits. Sometimes when I take the bus or am riding in the passenger seat of a car, I'll use StreetComplete to update the bus stops or street info as I go by.

I also use Komoot for planning cycling routes, which itself uses OpenStreetMap. It's nice to see my edits show up in other places, like Komoot

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#489

Post by waveBidder »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #473
_uhtu wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be willing to say this is causation. Wikipedia is one of the few places on the Internet where there isn't an a absolutely desperate end goal to keep people staring at it all day and all night to make 0.006 cents on ad revenue. So the content can actually be useful instead of drowned out in SEO and ads.

So much this. One thing I regularly think about is that there are many popular websites that could be sustainable with a smaller headcount, but they took VC and need to eat the world.

~0% interest was a mistake.

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#490

Post by Shocka1 »

nvy wrote: post #454
gunapologist99 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MSNBC = reliable Mother Jones = reliable Fox News = unreliable

I'm not familiar with MSNBC and have never even heard of Mother Jones, but surely it's not controversial that Fox News is unreliable? They're an absolute punch line everywhere outside the US.

I'm guessing you must not be from the US, as MSNBC/Fox News both are on TV at all times in various public and private spaces. It depends on the content of course (political), but MSNBC is a left leaning version of Fox News - they are the same, just on the opposite sides of the spectrum. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't rank MSNBC the same as Fox News sends up some flags for me, but I could really care less at this point in my life. Both networks have that cancerous "create outrage for views" thing going on that has been nothing but detrimental to American society. Unfortunately it's just about impossible to get away from, as Americans nowadays seem to be addicted to the constant need for drama and outrage in their lives.

I'm not sure about Mother Jones, but the other two I would always take with a grain of salt.

Post reply on HN