Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#161

Post by nsajko » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #146

nsajko wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that the "feminist economics" article does not seem impartial to you, but have you tried improving it? You could add that Criticism section.

Have you tried to edit contentious Wikipedia articles? The edits would get nuked and Wikilawyered away by editors who control the article.

You should look at "Wikilawyering" as mostly a scare tactic.

I acknowledge that making ones edits pass by other interested editors (especially those with more time or numbers than you have) is exhausting. But it is worth it, considering Wikipedia gets first place in Google's search results.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#162

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 4:32 AM UTC

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #25

everdrive wrote: post #12

The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…

I remember there was a moment back in the late 90ies many who already worked with the Web joked on usenet etc that "the Internet is becoming mainstream" (usually as an eye-roll reaction to trolls or somebody gullible forwarding a hoax email ...) I think we made a big mistake trying to convince everyone that the digital life is like real. E.g. you can have real conversations etc. (they are real but not the same, maybe…

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#163

Post by kkoncevicius » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

nsajko wrote: post #160

KKPMW wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be quite a bit sceptical of "neutral point of view" emerging from two ideologies fighting against each other and the stronger one winning... To me it looks like the deeper problem is that there is little gain for a truly well-intentioned and impartial editor to keep editing articles for free, seeing that all around them neutrality is being suppressed for political party lines and ideologies. I agree with you…

But what alternative to Wikipedia do you propose? Also see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20371610

> But what alternative to Wikipedia do you propose?

What I do personally for subject that feel a bit controversial is: 1) read the Wiki article 2) read the Talk page 3) look for edits that were made earlier (special before the 2016 USA election) 4) look for primary sources when feasible.

As another commenter mentioned here - editing articles in Wikipedia is a waste of time now, because there are interest groups that control a lot of "touchy" subjects. As an example (and I am adding it because I know the subject matter, having read 5 books by the author) compare the leading abstract of "Julius Evola" before 2016, and after:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&oldi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola

What changed? Evola was one of the authors that Steve Bannon mentioned in one of his interviews. So editors tried to turn Evola into a misogynist + racist + fascist, just to smear the Bannon guy.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#164

Post by WorldMaker » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

qwsxyh wrote: post #134

WorldMaker wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I liked Twitter before Twitter decided that advertisers and "trending topics" and virality were more important than personal curation. The out-of-order timeline with forced ads and both Likes and Replies becoming less deterministic retweets were some of the last straws for me.

My timeline is completely in-order and I don't see ads.

It's good that ad blockers exist and they added an in-order option back after I left, but the problem remains that the defaults are still anti-curative/pro-advertiser/pro-"engagement metrics". Having such terrible defaults makes the whole social network less trustworthy, because while you might curate your feed, do the people you follow still do? Do the people they follow?