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

25 Years of Wikipedia

wikipedia25.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 498 posts

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#81

Post by InsideOutSanta »

FiveOhThree wrote: post #55
amrocha wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more likely that you became more radicalized so what used to read as neutral seems partisan now.

Is it radicalised to want even a basic premise of neutrality in an encyclopedia? Despite not being particularly political, even I raise an eyebrow when an article opens with "____ is a , , known for "

I've never seen an article like that, other than for people like Epstein, who are primarily famous for their crimes. I just went and checked the pages of some famous people where you might expect this kind of treatment if Wikipedia were indeed biased in the way people seem to think (like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz), and they're not like that.

There are a lot of comments in this thread talking about a strong bias in Wikipedia, but I don't see any examples. I have no doubt that there are some articles that are biased, particularly in less popular areas that get less attention, but overall, Wikipedia does a great job maintaining a neutral point of view in its articles.

I do get the impression that what people perceive as bias is often simply neutrality. If you think yourself the victim of an evil cabal of your political opponents, then a neutral description of the facts might seem like an attack.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#82

Post by matusp »

adventured wrote: post #40
p-e-w wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Projects like Wikipedia never have meaningful competition, because the social dynamics invariably converge to a single platform eating everything else.

Wikipedia is already dead, they just don't know it yet. They'll get Stackoverflowed. The LLMs have already guaranteed their zombie end. The HN crowd will be comically delusional about it right up to the point where Wikimedia struggles to keep the lights on and has to fire 90% of its staff. There is no scenario where that outcome is avoided (some prominent billionaire will step in with a check as they get really despe…

Wikipedia is not even in the game you are describing here. Wikipedia does not need billions of users clicking on ads to convince investors in yet another seed. They are an encyclopedia, and if fewer people will visit, they will still be an encyclopedia. Their costs are probably very strongly correlated with their number of visitors.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#83

Post by pavlov »

FiveOhThree wrote: post #55
amrocha wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more likely that you became more radicalized so what used to read as neutral seems partisan now.

Is it radicalised to want even a basic premise of neutrality in an encyclopedia? Despite not being particularly political, even I raise an eyebrow when an article opens with "____ is a , , known for "

Please provide an example so we can evaluate what makes even someone as non-political and neutral as you raise an eyebrow.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#84

Post by zozbot234 »

FiveOhThree wrote: post #24

I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events. That's probably linked to the increasing polarisation in the US, but I get the impression that the sites neutrality policies have gradually been chipped awa…

Wikipedia was always insufficiently neutral about political or social topics. At a bare minimum, you need to check whether there are any highlighted controversies in the article talk page.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#86

Post by Toutouxc »

FiveOhThree wrote: post #55
amrocha wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more likely that you became more radicalized so what used to read as neutral seems partisan now.

Is it radicalised to want even a basic premise of neutrality in an encyclopedia? Despite not being particularly political, even I raise an eyebrow when an article opens with "____ is a , , known for "

Can you please provide an example?

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#87

Post by InsideOutSanta »

adventured wrote: post #40
p-e-w wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Projects like Wikipedia never have meaningful competition, because the social dynamics invariably converge to a single platform eating everything else.

Wikipedia is already dead, they just don't know it yet. They'll get Stackoverflowed. The LLMs have already guaranteed their zombie end. The HN crowd will be comically delusional about it right up to the point where Wikimedia struggles to keep the lights on and has to fire 90% of its staff. There is no scenario where that outcome is avoided (some prominent billionaire will step in with a check as they get really despe…

Most people went to SO because they had to for their job. Most people go to Wikipedia because they want to, for curiosity and learning.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#88

Post by jyscao »

thiht wrote: post #71
jyscao wrote: post #29

Wikipedia is overall excellent, and it has certainly brought enormous value to me throughout the years. But it is noticeably biased on any topic that has political implications.

Can't wait for the specific examples

What for? To start a flame war? No one is going to get convinced one way or the other.

Which was why I just wanted to point out that while I think Wikipedia is a net good overall, it is not without blemishes.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#89

Post by zozbot234 »

FiveOhThree wrote: post #51
gibspaulding wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friendly reminder that we all have the power to improve this! Become an editor and If you come across a problematic article, you can make improvements, or even just flag it as needing work. I know this is not a small ask, and can feel discouraging if you see more issues than you have time to address or your edits are not accepted, but when you consider the relatively small number of editors and the huge number of rea…

The impression I've had from trying to contribute in the past has been that some editors will fight tooth and nail to prevent changes to an article they effectively own. The maze of rules and regulations makes it far too easy to simply block changes by dragging everything through protracted resolution processes. Even something as clear-cut as "the provided source doesn't support this claim at all" becomes an uphill s…

The trick these days is to calmly make your case on the talk page first for anything that might be even slightly controversial, before you attempt any editing. So if someone wants to "own" the article they have to engage on the same terms, or you can just point out the lack of opposition and make the edit yourself.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#90

Post by amrocha »

FiveOhThree wrote: post #55
amrocha wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more likely that you became more radicalized so what used to read as neutral seems partisan now.

Is it radicalised to want even a basic premise of neutrality in an encyclopedia? Despite not being particularly political, even I raise an eyebrow when an article opens with "____ is a , , known for "

That’s not my perception at all, but if you find an article like that please change it!

That’s the beauty of wikipedia after all. I recently made my first contribution and it was a really smooth process.

Post reply on HN