31–40 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the better criticism of Wikipedia. But it's really not a criticism of Wikipedia directly - it's more of a indictment on how media creates Zeitgeists and reality conforms to them.
But it is a criticism of Wikipedia directly. There is no reason why they couldn't come up with a more thoughtful, complete validation method. Instead, they just default to a last-century model of trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is has nothing to do with free speech. It's there to (in my words) document the world around us. To explain things factually, or as factually as we can. It's not about anyone's opinions or ideas.
Still, free speech is what allows such a project. And Wikipedia also explains philosophical opinions, political positions, NSFW concepts, etc., which is only possible to that extent due to free speech. So I would disagree both that Wikipedia has nothing to do with free speech, and that it’s not about anybody’s opinions or ideas.
Free speech allows Wikipedia to publish unpopular or controversial speech, but that's not the same as having an editorial policy that contributors are allowed to express themselves on the platform, which would obviously be inappropriate.
Wikipedia documents opinions and ideologies but that's not the same as supporting the expression of the opinions and ideologies of its contributors. (See above.)
https://www.rbc.ru/society/24/05/2023/646e58029a794724e1b894...
[flagged]
While there are many legitimate questions about Wikipedia’s openness to new edits and editors, this is such a wild topic derail that I find it a little suspicious. Are you arguing that this isn’t a great loss for freedom of speech?
How is this a topic derail? What's the topic then exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is a criticism of Wikipedia directly. There is no reason why they couldn't come up with a more thoughtful, complete validation method. Instead, they just default to a last-century model of trust.
What other "validation method" do you have in mind?
In general I find Wikipedia articles to be written from a very specific viewpoint that highlights certain facts and hides others. Whether this is from Wikipedia writers themselves or is merely a reflection of their sources, I’m not sure. But if the goal is to provide the truth, I don’t think they make a particularly good effort at incorporating alternative perspectives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is a criticism of Wikipedia directly. There is no reason why they couldn't come up with a more thoughtful, complete validation method. Instead, they just default to a last-century model of trust.
It's hard to imagine that Wikipedia with a centralized authority to handle "validation" would be remotely the same Wikipedia.
[flagged]
Russian Wikipedia will continue without the Wikimedia chapter, for clarity. It's not going offline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you making sure to include citations to proven reliable sources to back up your contributions? If so, then you can dispute any reverts on the article's Talk page. My experience with Wikipedia is that they are extraordinarily open and fair, and honestly they give more benefit of the doubt to editors than most of them deserve.
A lot of citations just use Fox News, Vox, CNN, etc. as fact. Wikipedia isn't very serious about scientific/objective truth.
Not that there is anything wrong with opinions, but they should at least be referenced as such when there is a clear debate.
Otherwise it just erodes trust - this actually seems to be an awfully common sentiment towards wikipedia, as it is evident even from neighboring comments.
[flagged]
I don't think it makes sense to equate English speaking Wikipedia (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) with a different language Wikipedia. Different cultures, most likely fewer people sitting around spending every free moment starting drama on wikipedia
So, actually, lots of drama.