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

Wikipedia is 20

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 391 posts

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#111

Post by elliotec »

mattcwilson wrote: post #54
lovecg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you share an example of a biased article? I haven’t really noticed that (at least for the visible, high profile articles) - the coverage has been as balanced as anywhere. Where it might get “extreme” is on niche topics that few people care about. For example I remember some articles associated with the whole “audiophile” scene were claiming some silly things without much evidence behind them, but that’s pretty…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting

What about this article is biased?

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#112

Post by three_seagrass »

toomim wrote: post #95
Merman_Mike wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a current event that is extremely political: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_pro... It cites 462 sources and the parts I read are at least as objective as any news outlet. I know that Wikipedia editors lean left. I'd be interested to see examples of this bias in Wiki entries though.

This might not be quite the examples you're looking for, but here's a study of Wikipedia's leftward bias from Harvard: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/41946110/greenst...

Are you sure? That article talks about how unbiased Wikipedia is:

>Our study finds that crowd-based knowledge production does not result in articles with more biased than articles produced by experts when the crowd-based articles are substantially revised.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#113

Post by Kim_Bruning »

jessriedel wrote: post #92
libraryofbabel wrote: post #63

Three aphorisms in honor of Wikipedia, greatest encyclopedia in world history, and its 20 years of free knowledge uncorrupted by advertising: * Wikipedia works in practice, but not in theory. * Wikipedia is the worst source of information, except for all the others. * Wikipedia: the Internet’s greatest reason to feel a little bit optimistic about human nature.

Having looked into it a bit, I've been severely disappointed that we have no good theory of why Wikipedia works. There are lots of putative explanations, but they all predict the successful existence of all sorts of collaborative projects that we don't actually see. Wikipedia is such a treasure, and it would be extremely valuable to know more about how it works so we can replicate aspects of it for other projects.

http://wiki.c2.com/?WikiHistory

Start here.

* There's a variant on design patterns which you can call Community Patterns.

* Some patterns are software design patterns

* Some patterns describe Agile software development.

* Some patterns describe how to run a wiki (and why)

* Wikipedia originally adopted these patterns and extended them for its own policy.

See also: http://wiki.c2.com/?WhyWikiWorks

If you want a long thoughtful writeup, check this text by Aaron Swartz

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/wikiroads

That's some baseline sources off the top of my head. There's a lot more written about this. It seems like there are several concepts working together that a lot of people find un-intuitive.

* In the main, human beings are honest. In fact mathematics predicts it must be so. (Game theory)

* Humans "automagically" cooperate if their numbers are small (under Dunbar's number), but fail to do so over that number.

* If you can keep the number of cooperating people under control, you can take advantage of this.

* Conversely, if something needs attention, the ability to rapidly recruit them to the point needing attention is paramount (see eg. smart mobs)

Partly by accident, partly by design, wiki engines exploit the above 3 elements. At first approximation, as long as >>51% of users are honest, the wiki will continue to function. The measured value on operational wikis is something like 60-80%.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#114

Post by cyphar »

elliotec wrote: post #98
senkora wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics. That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m free to help out...).

Why do you say that? Are there examples of inaccuracies in it's mathematics articles? What do you wish were better about it? What IS better than it?

In order to understand most Wikipedia mathematics articles you need to already be well versed in the topic you're looking up. Even after finishing a Physics degree I struggle to understand the derivations of common physics equations because they use far more advanced concepts than necessary to demonstrate their point.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#115

Post by chrisbolt »

aerosmile wrote: post #40

I am surprised that the comments haven't mentioned the role of SEO in Wikipedia's growth and defensibility. Wikipedia's habit of deep interlinking helped it rank back in the early aughts when the SEO rules were rather simple. Add to that the subdomain-driven localization strategy and many other moves that were considered SEO best practices back in those years when the on-page factors used to matter. But that was just…

> So when Panda came around, Google correctly rewarded Wikipedia with #1 rankings for over 50% of its terms (!!), and Jason Calacanis had to shut down Mahalo which got destroyed by Panda.

For context, this is the type of content that Mahalo was producing to try to game SEO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdNk1xmDpxo

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#116

Post by megameter »

elliotec wrote: post #98
senkora wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics. That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m free to help out...).

Why do you say that? Are there examples of inaccuracies in it's mathematics articles? What do you wish were better about it? What IS better than it?

It's not that the mathematics wiki articles are wrong, it's that they aren't particularly well organized to accommodate all skill levels. If you don't already know what concepts you're looking for it can be a jumble. That said, wiki plus textbook is better than either alone.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#117

Post by vmurthy »

e12e wrote: post #90
creato wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can barely believe I'm reading this comment! Wikipedia is my first and almost always only stop whenever I want to learn something related to math.

Sometimes the "simple English" version is better than the "full" English version - perhaps especially for mathematics.

I came here to post that simple wikipedia exists :) . Just to prove your point, have a look at the simple page for "Prime number" [0] and the regular page for the same [1]

If I were just starting out with mathematics, I'd be rather intimidated by the regular page. I find the simple version to be the right start for any topic and then move on to the regular one.

[0] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#118

Post by elliotec »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #110
elliotec wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any examples?

Sure. English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) Russian: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=htt...

Fascinating.

The most interesting thing of these differences is that they're saying the same thing,but the agenda is clear in that saying the same thing is more positive or negative depending on the language.

Russian > Gab is an English-speaking social network . Gab is described as being tolerant of different patriotic groups [5] and a safe haven for communities that would be restricted or blocked on other social networks [6] . The Gab groups can be characterized as patriotic, white supremacist and alternative right [5] . The site allows each user to forward a message to 3000 other users, which are called "gebs" [7] . It has been revealed that Gab is generally a favorite platform for people with conservative, libertarian , patriotic views. [8]

English > Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right and extremist userbase.[3][4][5][6] Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social networks.[7][8][18] Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty, though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem.[16][19][20] Antisemitism is prominent among the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[22][23][24] Researchers have written that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[25]

Really interesting how language and national propaganda propagates through stuff like this.

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#119

Post by [deleted] »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #28
matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

Plenty of subtle agenda-pushing on Wikipedia if you're paying attention

Oh, it's not even subtle. Here's a game you can play: compare an article with the same article in another language. If you don't speak another language then use google translate. You'll see where the agenda pushing is. Oh, and always read talk pages.

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia is 20

#120

Post by teloli »

matthewmorgan wrote: post #8

Plenty of subtle agenda-pushing on Wikipedia if you're paying attention

Not even that subtle. For instance, declaring that Taiwan is a country despite the fact that it isn’t recognized as such by most of the world. That was such a big deal that it was met with triumph by Taiwanese media: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3948149

Don’t get me wrong, I support the cause of Taiwanese independence, but facts are facts. I also think that the Basque Country should be independent, and yet it would be factually incorrect to claim that it’s a country.

Post reply on HN