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

I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned

washingtonexaminer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 22 posts

Re: I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned

#11

Post by xyzzy123 »

one33seven wrote: post #6
SilverElfin wrote: post #2

Yep, this has long been an issue. Wikipedia articles on even slightly political topics are very one-sided. The rules that govern Wikipedia reinforce a certain set of views, and those who hold power in that community also share certain sets of views. Larry Sanger has talked about this trend for many years, but I am not sure there’s a way to stop the increasing bias in Wikipedia. The activists running it have too much…

Facts aren't views.

If we take a contested issue like the origins of COVID-19, the facts are detailed, complex, contradictory and ambiguous. They also don't make narrative sense without some degree of interpretation.

Interpretations of complex webs of facts often diverge along tribal lines and bias can easily leak through when editors need to decide which interpretations are authoritative.

Re: I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned

#12

Post by trouve_search »

arjie wrote: post #5

Wikipedia is just some kind of tertiary aggregator of source information. It's true that it's got a blue tribe slant to many articles where it's not relevant, but that's sort of regional. Indian articles have their own very-different flavour and all that. Anyway, here's the WP that canvassing for got him banned for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_... I don't see it now but I could have sw…

The fact that he could only get this story published in the Washington examiner of all places should be a signal that more reputable places don't want to attach their name to this

Re: I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned

#13

Post by ButlerianJihad »

cgeier wrote: post #10

Wikipedia has become a toxic place, at least for most political/partisan topics. But if it really wants to be a community build site, it makes sense that a Co-Founder doesn't have any special rights. ("The irony is that not even a co-founder can edit it if he is attempting to implement his program of reform.")

Which one?

Few people can acknowledge or even realize that there are hundreds of Wikipedias. Mostly language-based, but some are language-neutral.

But they all boast their own unique communities and unique internal rules. Never judge WMF based on enwiki alone!

Re: I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned

#14

Post by Nervhq »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #11
one33seven wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facts aren't views.

If we take a contested issue like the origins of COVID-19, the facts are detailed, complex, contradictory and ambiguous. They also don't make narrative sense without some degree of interpretation. Interpretations of complex webs of facts often diverge along tribal lines and bias can easily leak through when editors need to decide which interpretations are authoritative.

[dead]

Re: I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned

#15

Post by didntcheck »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #13
cgeier wrote: post #10

Wikipedia has become a toxic place, at least for most political/partisan topics. But if it really wants to be a community build site, it makes sense that a Co-Founder doesn't have any special rights. ("The irony is that not even a co-founder can edit it if he is attempting to implement his program of reform.")

Which one? Few people can acknowledge or even realize that there are hundreds of Wikipedias. Mostly language-based, but some are language-neutral. But they all boast their own unique communities and unique internal rules. Never judge WMF based on enwiki alone!

Sure, but it's pretty clear that the topic of this English language article is the English language Wikipedia

Re: I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned

#16

Post by account42 »

didntcheck wrote: post #15
ButlerianJihad wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which one? Few people can acknowledge or even realize that there are hundreds of Wikipedias. Mostly language-based, but some are language-neutral. But they all boast their own unique communities and unique internal rules. Never judge WMF based on enwiki alone!

Sure, but it's pretty clear that the topic of this English language article is the English language Wikipedia

Which is also the biggest. By far. So big in fact that you very much can judge WMF based on it alone.

Re: I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned

#17

Post by DarkBrocoli »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #11
one33seven wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facts aren't views.

If we take a contested issue like the origins of COVID-19, the facts are detailed, complex, contradictory and ambiguous. They also don't make narrative sense without some degree of interpretation. Interpretations of complex webs of facts often diverge along tribal lines and bias can easily leak through when editors need to decide which interpretations are authoritative.

By definition, facts cannot be contradictory or ambiguous. Otherwise, they are not facts.

Re: I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned

#19

Post by SilverElfin »

Cider9986 wrote: post #8
SilverElfin wrote: post #2

Yep, this has long been an issue. Wikipedia articles on even slightly political topics are very one-sided. The rules that govern Wikipedia reinforce a certain set of views, and those who hold power in that community also share certain sets of views. Larry Sanger has talked about this trend for many years, but I am not sure there’s a way to stop the increasing bias in Wikipedia. The activists running it have too much…

Any example articles to look at that demonstrate your point?

Anything controversial will have this issue. But COVID, BLM, and things relating to the current administration often have those biases. To see how rules get weaponized, see the talk pages. You find that a lot of reasonable editors are basically blocked using one technicality or the other, and it is used to keep balanced views out of Wikipedia. The rules sound benign until you see how they favor one side.

Re: I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned

#20

Post by Alpha3031 »

avaer wrote: post #7

The thing that rubs me the wrong way about WP (and one of the core issues in this controversy) is "taxation without representation". Wikipedia is perfectly happy to promote the grand narrative that they are the thankless sacred keepers of humanity's knowledge. They'll take your edits. And they are perfectly happy to take your money for this divine goal. Just take a look at the marketing they plaster onto every page d…

I think it's rather positive that Wikipedia editorial decisions are entirely independent of the foundation which accepts (and begs for) donations because nobody has to care about your decision not to donate.

It's not as if donations go to editors anyway, and there are plenty of the editor community who are rather more severe in their dislain for how the foundation conducts fundraising (I wouldn't say it's a majority, most probably don't care, but certainly a sizable minority) and would probably prefer you not donate anyway. On the other hand, I do think a majority of the community supports the policy of being resistant towards non-neutral outside coordination used to manipulate and undermine the integrity of internal decision making processes.

Post reply on HN