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

271–280 of 498 posts

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#271

Post by wintermutestwin »

advisedwang wrote: post #204
konne88 wrote: post #142

I do believe that Wikipedia is one of the least biased sources out there, but there is definitely bias. Here is a concrete example. Compare the introduction paragraph of the English circumcision article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision ) with the German one ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkumzision ). The English intro talks a lot about medical advantages of the procedure: "reduced rates of sexually tr…

It's impossible to write completely neutrally. Editorial decisions like what information to include or exclude, what sources to cite, what order to present information in, what illustrations to use cannot be avoided and inherently present some kind of narrative.

It absolutely is possible to write completely neutrally. All it takes is for the writer to be aware/honest of their biases and to have a goal of achieving a neutral perspective. Of course the goal of most writing is explicitly to not be neutral.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#272

Post by frereubu »

hliyan wrote: post #56
jader201 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for their unnecessarily incessant fund raising. There’s zero reason it should happen that often, and that intrusively.

On Twitter/X "for you" feed, I'm frequently served posts by handles that are openly hostile toward Wikipedia. The most often cited reason is excessive fundraising / bloat (previously it was bias). But in my opinion, whatever bloat the Wikipedia organization suffers from, it is still a better alternative than all the other ad/engagement driven platforms.

To repurpose Winston Churchill's quote on democracy, "Wikipedia is the worst form of encyclopaedia, apart for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#273

Post by amrocha »

bakugo wrote: post #199
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.

I mean... this is a very real phenomenon, but probably not in the way you're thinking of. There are many simple statements of fact that, 15 or 20 years ago, were as universally uncontroversial as "the sky is blue", but today are considered radically controversial political opinions, and will get you banned for most online platforms if you dare utter them.

No, I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think you could produce a single example.

Keep in mind that stating a fact and dogwhistling are not the same thing.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#274

Post by defjm »

duozerk wrote: post #172
thunderbong wrote: post #147

In the 2000s, in the tech world, the open source successes that were being talked about was always Apache and Linux. When Wikipedia started gaining a bit of traction, everyone made fun of it. It was the butt of jokes in all the prime time comedy shows. And I always felt like telling the critics - "Don't you see what is happening? People all over the world are adding their own bits of knowledge and creating this huge…

> Something that goes beyond our daily vices of politics and religion Religion maybe, and Wikipedia is indeed pretty awesome for many topics, but politics is THE bad example here. Much of the political - especially geopolitical - content on Wikipedia has a tremendous atlanticist bias.

Could you provide an example article from Wikipedia for such bias?

PS: I had to look up „atlanticist“, did this on Wikipedia. (giggle!)

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#275

Post by johnisgood »

layer8 wrote: post #268
johnisgood wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond ?

The introductory paragraph in Simple English is: 'A diamond (from the ancient Greek αδάμας – adámas "unbreakable") is a re-arrangement of carbon atoms (those are called allotropes).' Seriously? Compare with the Britannica one: 'diamond, a mineral composed of pure carbon. It is the hardest naturally occurring substance known; it is also the most popular gemstone. Because of their extreme hardness, diamonds have a numb…

I prefer the Britannica one, too.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#276

Post by hallole »

UebVar wrote: post #143
gwbas1c wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without context, it looks like the interviewer was a jerk and ambushed him. I've seen plenty of stalling like that on major news programs, and the interviewer always knows to move on (and possibly edit something in to provide context.) --- That being said, "who started what" and "who had what idea" are silly topics to obsesses about. It always come down to who put the long-term work in. I think Wales was "in the righ…

The interview started with the most mundane question "Who are you?", and the very first sentence of Wales is either a lie or misleading. The journalists asks for clarification (thats a journalists job, btw), and in his second sentence of the interview Wales insults the journalist. I'm pretty sure who is the jerk here. It also was Wales who bought up the topic, not the journalist. If he considers it a stupid topic he…

"So, who are you?" "Stupid question."

What an interview! I had never seen this clip before, it's really something. Facts and context are important for sure, but as someone who isn't clued in on the Sanger drama, Wales could not possibly have made himself look worse. And in under a minute!

As you said, the interviewer is in the right, carrying out the job of interviewing, by pushing Wales as he did. To call him a "jerk" is silly, I think.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#277

Post by oxag3n »

It's a miracle that in a world where everything becomes a service, proprietary and cloud based, you can download a collective human knowledge (while some argue it's biased, not truth-based and consensus ran - yes, but I think it's one of the best outcome for a socially constructed knowledge).

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#278

Post by bakugo »

amrocha wrote: post #273
bakugo wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... this is a very real phenomenon, but probably not in the way you're thinking of. There are many simple statements of fact that, 15 or 20 years ago, were as universally uncontroversial as "the sky is blue", but today are considered radically controversial political opinions, and will get you banned for most online platforms if you dare utter them.

No, I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think you could produce a single example. Keep in mind that stating a fact and dogwhistling are not the same thing.

Exactly, you don't think it's true because you don't believe they're facts, you've been radicalized into believing they're "dogwhistles" (a term only used by radicalized people, by the way - if you keep hearing dogwhistles, you might just be a dog.)

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#279

Post by f1shy »

mettamage wrote: post #261
jbki wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is often the last on my goto resources to consult. The information is huge, but writing quality or style often irks me more than I can stand. I I always check Britannica first. If it's not there, then I move on.

Hmm, I think this is an area where LLMs can be quite useful to make a wikipedia article more approachable.

But dangerous, as the LLMs are trained on wikipedia.
Post reply on HN