In the day and age of tweets that move entire markets, countries that have official online profiles and use them as a major mean of public communication, Wikipedia policies feel so lame, mostly because it is not even an encyclopedia, but a website that pretends to be one
Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
401–410 of 441 posts
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can influence the general sentiment in the thread, have the last word everywhere when terms/companies and so on are mentioned. Manipulation goes way beyond just "score goes up", sometimes introducing a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt is enough to derail entire submissions.
OK, but does the Karma help those goals?
Yes, apparently some people (like stymaar) do look at user's profile and look at those numbers to decide how they feel about things. Sometimes high karma can be a sign of trust or a established profile, sometimes (like in this case coupled with relatively recent registration date) it comes of as a signal of suspicion.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I use to play this game where I gently rub as many established users as possible the wrong way. > I do this as an IP editor as I've seen them fabricate excuses to ban users often enough. You know there's no need to fabricate an excuse to indefinitely block someone for trolling right?
You can't report someone for constructive improvements, quality citations and polite talk page discourse.
You've openly stated that you were intentionally acting in bad faith, hounding other editors to provoke them and doing so while logged out to evade scrutiny. Retreating to "you can't prove I did anything wrong" is not the defense you think it is.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notability is a qualified state on Wikipedia, as both TFA and Wikipedia itself document. One of the qualifications is having third-party sources document the subject, where those third-party sources are themselves notable and reputable (in the subject area). A company’s statement that it uses a programming language might be factual , but that doesn’t necessarily make it notable . (To be clear: I was only vaguely awar…
To be clear, I was not talking about Odin specifically. This is about notability in general. >where those third-party sources are themselves notable and reputable (in the subject area) this is where the bias kicks in. It would be great if Wikipedia's notability goes "All youtube sources are not reliable" but instead its always phrased like "Some Youtube sources are not reliable" and what qualifies as this "some" is u…
> It would be great if Wikipedia's notability goes "All youtube sources are not reliable" but instead its always phrased like "Some Youtube sources are not reliable" and what qualifies as this "some" is usually decided by the personal bias of the admins.
You can read the policy yourself[1]. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me at all.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
And notability isn't just for spam, the core difficulty with Wikipedia is that people disagree about what should be written in articles. The site only functions because of a masterful Jiu-jitsu move where we redirect heated arguments about what Wikipedia should say into heated arguments about which Reliable Source to cite. That's the fundamental underlying reason behind all the rules and all the deletion discussions.…
Except for the citogensis problem. https://xkcd.com/978/ what's the gate being kept and by whom?
The gate is reliable secondary sources. These sources, for the most part, don't check their facts using Wikipedia. These sources also tend to have feedback mechanisms, so if they have make a mistake, their response is to correct it in a timely fashion.
This is what makes them reliable in Wikipedians' judgement. A publication that regularly made errors, or published claims regardless of veracity, or left errors in place even after being notified of them, would quickly lose its "reliable" badge. Wikipedians even track the downfall of a reliable source becoming an unreliable one, and say you can only cite articles from the time period the source was reliable.
And Wikipedia itself is ready and waiting to remove citogenesis and prevent it coming back, the moment it's no longer in a reliable source. So while citogenesis can happen, it's detected and resolved over time, it's not some "gotcha".
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
> tech website of note Does anyone care about "tech websites"? Like what, one of those weird websites that thinks they're a newspaper whose revenue collapsed 10 years ago so they only publish clickbait no one reads? Does anyone actually get tech news, especially about programming languages, from a space that's not X, HN, YouTube, GitHub, Codeberg or a user group?
Do you want Wikipedia editors to start citing YouTube videos? I'll tell you what will happen if sourcing standards are loosened in that way. You'll get tons of editors arguing, "So and so said this at 21:45 in this podcast." And then someone else will say, "But he said this other thing that contradicts that at 22:30." And then a third editor will come along and say the person was just joking. The signal-to-noise in t…
> Those "weird websites" have a reputation one can track.
Do they? I mean, I don't track them.
But as an example, let's use CBC. They've published nearly a redaction per day on their stories... https://www.cbc.ca/news/corrections-clarifications-1.5893564
They're a government run, public broadcaster and they're this poor... But they're an acceptable Wikipedia source.
Meanwhile, someone like the Primeagen has 1.15 million followers and has used Odin. That's not notable?
JangaFX products have been used by creators that cumulatively have millions of subscribers, on top of a website that says they use Odin, on top of the CEO and others X accounts, but that's not enough to convince people JangaFX is a real company with real products?
Remember, CNN and all the "trusted" news outlets also have YouTube accounts.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#407I have never been a wikipedia contributor (let alone a mod), but their points seem fair. Maybe not fair for the particular case, but fair for the general case. People who ridicule wikipedia policies should at least acknowledge that the modern internet is a very low trust society with millions of bad actors trying to push their agenda at the expense of others. And now with AI bots running amok the headache increases t…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck Apparently that one is "notable" but Odin is not. "The rules" are on the hook to justify their existence by providing reasonable and desirable outcomes, they're not a purpose unto themselves. If your rules are shown to be buggy, fix your rules.
i have never used odin.
I did write a compiler that targeted brainfuck
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
> tech website of note Does anyone care about "tech websites"? Like what, one of those weird websites that thinks they're a newspaper whose revenue collapsed 10 years ago so they only publish clickbait no one reads? Does anyone actually get tech news, especially about programming languages, from a space that's not X, HN, YouTube, GitHub, Codeberg or a user group?
Do you want Wikipedia editors to start citing YouTube videos? I'll tell you what will happen if sourcing standards are loosened in that way. You'll get tons of editors arguing, "So and so said this at 21:45 in this podcast." And then someone else will say, "But he said this other thing that contradicts that at 22:30." And then a third editor will come along and say the person was just joking. The signal-to-noise in t…
> Do you want Wikipedia editors to start citing YouTube videos?
If 4chan is good enough for math papers, surely Youtube is good enough for Wikipedia.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess Elon Musk is doing something like that: https://grokipedia.com/page/Odin_programming_language At least there, the Odin article still lives on.
Below https://grokipedia.com/page/Odin_programming_language#type-s... , there’s a random citation inside a code span…
Do suggest edits so that it'll get better with time!
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, I was not talking about Odin specifically. This is about notability in general. >where those third-party sources are themselves notable and reputable (in the subject area) this is where the bias kicks in. It would be great if Wikipedia's notability goes "All youtube sources are not reliable" but instead its always phrased like "Some Youtube sources are not reliable" and what qualifies as this "some" is u…
> It would be great if Wikipedia's notability goes "All youtube sources are not reliable" but instead its always phrased like "Some Youtube sources are not reliable" and what qualifies as this "some" is usually decided by the personal bias of the admins. You can read the policy yourself[1]. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me at all. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links
It does not seem unreasonable to me as well and I do not recall stating that being the case.
I only mentioned the YouTube scenario, but that's pretty much the case for almost everything. I'll repeat it again: it all boils down to the personal bias of the admins, and you seem to agree with that as well.