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

661–669 of 669 posts

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

#661

Post by didibus »

whatwhaaaaat wrote: post #645
didibus wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was even more curious, and it's pretty hard to search for what information was available on the web in early 2021. So don't judge me, but using ChatGPT is the fastest way I could think to get an idea. This is what chatGpt thinks was the CDC statement in early 2021: > In early 2021, the CDC indicated that while COVID-19 vaccines were highly effective at preventing severe illness, the ability of vaccinated individual…

[flagged]

I feel you're not enjoying looking for evidence of your claims as much as I am.

But sure, it says:

> Vaccine mandates were primarily advocated to decrease severe COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations, protect healthcare systems, ensure safer public spaces, and aim for herd immunity. This approach was favored even when the effect of vaccines on transmission was not fully known, as the overall public health benefits were clear.

I also explicitly challenged it and asked what's the point of mandating healthy individuals to get vaccinated if they weren't sure it would reduce transmission and it said:

> 1. Prevent severe disease: Even healthy individuals can suffer severe effects from COVID-19, although the risk is lower.

> 2. Reduce the burden on healthcare: Preventing illness in healthy individuals helps maintain healthcare capacity for all.

> 3. Mitigate the risk of variants: High vaccination rates can reduce the chance of new, potentially more dangerous variants.

> These benefits were considered to outweigh the uncertainties regarding transmission at the time mandates were discussed.

Please paste snippets and links to archives or other indicators that may show that when vaccines first arrived expert said it would prevent transmision without any basis for their claims. I'm totally willing to believe it, and I'm sure some did, but it also looks like there were experts and official sources that explicitly said that wasn't a sure thing. So at least I know I'm not crazy for having had that impression.

And you have to recognize, there's a lot of revisionist history and false representation going around too. I'm sure some people would have told others that experts and officials said something and they actually never said that. This probably happened a lot, which can make it feel to people experts and officials said something even when they never did.

Also, if it helps you swallow what I'm saying, I want to point out that I'm not a fan of vaccine mandates for the same reasons that I'm pro-choice. I believe people should have autonomy over their bodies.

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

#662

Post by DeusExMachina »

zymhan wrote: post #653
DeusExMachina wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Face masks are harmful Searching that sentence verbatim on Google produces, as a first result, a paper on the National Library of Medicine [1] that states in its abstract: > Extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields. How is that a conspiracy theory? At most, you can argue that it's not absolutely conclusive or that other studies reach diff…

You should really read your sources a little more closely: > As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. That's a banner at the top of the page.

That is tangential. I linked to a scientific study with a specific conclusion, and it's not the only study to reach such a conclusion.

Science is not done by consensus or endorsement. Studies must be refuted on scientific grounds.

Studies that disagree with your opinion are not conspiracy theories.

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

#663

Post by DeusExMachina »

exo-pla-net wrote: post #652
DeusExMachina wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Face masks are harmful Searching that sentence verbatim on Google produces, as a first result, a paper on the National Library of Medicine [1] that states in its abstract: > Extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields. How is that a conspiracy theory? At most, you can argue that it's not absolutely conclusive or that other studies reach diff…

> These symptoms were accompanied by a sensation of heat (p Heaven forbid! It's almost comical how certain people furrow for the tiniest of cherries to support their antivaxx, antimask knee jerking while their bodies get submitted to a gauntlet of health risks from contracting COVID.

You are shifting the goalpost. You are now arguing about benefits and disadvantages.

Your original argument was that this is a conspiracy theory, and it isn't.

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

#665

Post by exo-pla-net »

graphe wrote: post #657
exo-pla-net wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These symptoms were accompanied by a sensation of heat (p Heaven forbid! It's almost comical how certain people furrow for the tiniest of cherries to support their antivaxx, antimask knee jerking while their bodies get submitted to a gauntlet of health risks from contracting COVID.

Vaccines provide immunity. Which vaccine are you referring to? Flu shots for example are not vaccines. There are no COVID vaccines.

Poor buddy.

Flu shots are indeed a vaccine.

I think you're confused by the word "immunity". In the medical sense, it doesn't mean "invincibility". It's a reference to the immune system!

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

#666

Post by gunsle »

Mr_Minderbinder wrote: post #642

Has anyone else noticed how the articles for certain topics are written in a different style from how they once were? For example while reading about the Russian Civil War I came upon the article for the "Jewish Bolshevism" conspiracy theory, which was in vogue amongst the White movement. The current article now says explicitly that it is false, whereas older versions (pre-2018) just described what the theory was. I…

100%. I have noticed this in a ton of contested topics. It will often make some kind of judgement on the topic nowadays, which is not what I want out of Wikipedia. It’s my biggest issue with mainstream media as well. I don’t need your opinion on what happened, just give me the facts. But at least articles in the NYT or other media outlets are attributed to the author. With Wikipedia, there is no author to attribute the opinion/bias to, which makes it far more nefarious in my opinion.

For the longest time, Wikipedia simply presented facts, with sources, and allowed the user to make their own judgments. Nowadays, many pages are so heavily and obviously biased in one direction.

A personal example I noticed is when I did research on Intelligent Design. The page for it is so heavily biased in one direction, the idea that it’s completely BS “pseudoscience.” That may be the case, but how about you let me read the article and come to that conclusion myself, rather than poison the well from the start, by attempting to bias me in one direction before I’ve even read anything beyond the summary.

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

#667

Post by qingcharles »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #543
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.

I guess that's one reason I can't fully trust Wikipedia. Because of its beauracracy, primary sources can't make much headway. If I had an entry and they got my birthday wrong, I can show them my birth certificate and they wouldn't accept it. But if I talked to Fox News and said I was born in X, suddenly it's "a good source for wikipedia". I think it's a good rule of thumb to not have people edit articles too close to…

I once added an album release date to a page and cited the artist's own home page for the date. I was sharply rebuked for it.

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

#668

Post by whatwhaaaaat »

didibus wrote: post #661
whatwhaaaaat wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I feel you're not enjoying looking for evidence of your claims as much as I am. But sure, it says: > Vaccine mandates were primarily advocated to decrease severe COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations, protect healthcare systems, ensure safer public spaces, and aim for herd immunity. This approach was favored even when the effect of vaccines on transmission was not fully known, as the overall public health benefits were…

I gotta be honest. Trying to discuss something with someone who is just pasting word calculator responses is not actually getting either of us anywhere.

There is no truth to your word calculator copy pasta. It’s in total bullshit and anyone who has used any of these “ai” tools for any length of time for anything important knows how poor the responses really are.

I’m not trying to convince any one of anything. If you process the same information that I did and come to the conclusion you should boooooost then go for it.

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

#669

Post by pastage »

EricE wrote: post #259
pastage wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [nigerians] would be unwelcome in the fediverse except for those few, often westernized+hipsterized people Considering people are sentenced to death by stoning for being LGBTQ in Nigeria. It is easy to understand why this might be an issue worth policing if you can.. Is it sane to fedderate with people who might be killed for what they interact with on your fediverse. Ordinary people does include gay people you kno…

Ah yes, the noble bigotry argument. Historically that's never, ever lead to disaster.

It is quite hard to understand short comments. What are the relevant disasters you are talking about in this instance?
Post reply on HN