Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias
1–10 of 147 posts
Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias
#2Glad I got this entry in during the early days of wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Corrochio.
It has been wittled down numerous times over the years but the skeleton of the man's life remains.
Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias
#3Glad I got this entry in during the early days of wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Corrochio . It has been wittled down numerous times over the years but the skeleton of the man's life remains.
Based on TFA, this page would've been long gone had this been a woman.
Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias
#4misleading title, the scientist Donna Strickland had had her page deleted before she won the Nobel prize and therefore did not have a page at the time she won the prize.
Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias
#5most of wikipedia content is in public domain, how hard is it to "fork" wikipedia and start a new version without the army of their power editors and biased "admins", i.e. take an initial snapshot of the content as a seed but get rid of the centralized bureaucracy and censorship.
Edit: looks like there is IPFS version https://blog.ipfs.io/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/
Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias
#6most of wikipedia content is in public domain, how hard is it to "fork" wikipedia and start a new version without the army of their power editors and biased "admins", i.e. take an initial snapshot of the content as a seed but get rid of the centralized bureaucracy and censorship. Edit: looks like there is IPFS version https://blog.ipfs.io/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/
And trade them for an entirely different army of weird and biased editors?
Wikipedia has the same problem every major "community-driven" site does, those with the most time dictate the culture. And since there is no real compensation for that time, no one whose time is worth anything is going to be a major factor.
Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias
#7pretty soon scientists are going to have to start doing what celebrities and corporations have been doing for years: paid swarms of contributors and PR teams who write articles that are too robust to be deleted, and negative facts/citations are kept to a minimum.
Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias
#8most of wikipedia content is in public domain, how hard is it to "fork" wikipedia and start a new version without the army of their power editors and biased "admins", i.e. take an initial snapshot of the content as a seed but get rid of the centralized bureaucracy and censorship. Edit: looks like there is IPFS version https://blog.ipfs.io/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/
Sure but those power editors and admins do a lot of heavy lifting that you're taking for granted. Someone's gotta be updating those articles and who's to say the editors you get for your fork will be any less partial than the ones on Wikipedia?
Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias
#9misleading title, the scientist Donna Strickland had had her page deleted before she won the Nobel prize and therefore did not have a page at the time she won the prize.
This is covered in the article. Also, most Nobel winners are notable for their work long before winning the actual prize.
Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias
#10misleading title, the scientist Donna Strickland had had her page deleted before she won the Nobel prize and therefore did not have a page at the time she won the prize.
Easy enough to fix:
"Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia before rise to prominence points to wider bias"
I wish news outlets would stick to reporting the news.