Says an article with a paywall.
We live in a society.
Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
171–180 of 496 posts
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#172[flagged]
True. Reality does have a liberal bias.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always found the warning text for people who upload dick pics pretty amusing https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Nopenis
Is there some kind of automated NSFW/nudity detector that runs against Wikipedia/Wikimedia uploads? One would think there would be at their scale, I just don’t actually know. I saw your user page the other day while looking at a proposal to have a .onion URL for Wikipedia, and I thought that I’d seen you around here, and figure you’re as good a person as any to ask.
Not as far as i know, i think things are just manual review.
NSFW images on Wikimedia tends to be a very hot button issue when it comes to Wikimedia politics. There obviously some cases where such images are needed, and there is a lot of debate on where the line should be drawn (or if it should be drawn at all). Wikipedia is traditionally very anti-censorship in any form. Fun fact - Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales lost a bunch of his user rights when he went on a deletion spree of classical art work containing nudity.
There is an automated filter for child sexual abuse images. Its not public what the procedures related to it is, but i assume if it goes off the fbi gets called.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#174I was surprised that Wikipedia wasn't immediately overrun by trolls, griefers, and spammers. I'm still not entirely sure how it avoids that, though I've got some speculations. Unlike most user contributed sites it's happy to throw stuff away. It does grow but it doesn't care about growing fast. That's great but it's a hard formula to replicate.
> That's great but it's a hard formula to replicate
One important piece of even trying to replicate that is its nature as a nonprofit. Any profit-seeking organization trying to grow a user-contribution based site will prefer content and moderation pipelines that drive engagement over quality.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got any notable examples? All the history is publc so it should be easy to link to, presumably.
People say this about political topics on Wikipedia often but rarely if ever provide examples.
Another case of the well-documented left-wing bias of reality.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there some kind of automated NSFW/nudity detector that runs against Wikipedia/Wikimedia uploads? One would think there would be at their scale, I just don’t actually know. I saw your user page the other day while looking at a proposal to have a .onion URL for Wikipedia, and I thought that I’d seen you around here, and figure you’re as good a person as any to ask.
Not as far as i know, i think things are just manual review. NSFW images on Wikimedia tends to be a very hot button issue when it comes to Wikimedia politics. There obviously some cases where such images are needed, and there is a lot of debate on where the line should be drawn (or if it should be drawn at all). Wikipedia is traditionally very anti-censorship in any form. Fun fact - Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales lost…
I think I heard about Jimmy getting his privs revoked, but had no idea what precipitated that to occur. Some kind of misguided heading-off-at-the-pass of future naysayers and potential lawfare, I guess. Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown, and I guess he’s a figurehead as much as he’s a lead of operations. It makes sense to tie his hands so he can say he tried I guess. Interesting interplay of authority, both individual and collective.
No means or methods are necessary. I am familiar with the work of the NW3C and other groups who do important work in that area. My sympathies to the janitors. Truly difficult and important work.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#177Wikipedia is a good source for certain kinds of information. If you ask it about anything political it's going to be from a certain slant and the most informative part of the page will be the Talk page which explains what people would like on the page that isn't there, or shouldn't be on the page but is
What examples of this are there? I've usually found Wikipedia to be quite equal opportunity, well rounded, and factual. They have their NPOV[1] policy, and seem impressively unbiased to me, given the various divisive situations they have to try to cover. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_v...
The editors mostly reference left-leaning media outlets when it comes to political topics, without providing a counterbalance from right-leaning sources, assuming it were a truth-seeking endeavor.
As a non American this is very obvious to me.
Even Reuters that was supposedly meant to be a non-biased media outlet is clearly left-leaning at this point
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, Wikipedia really is worth celebrating. While I sympathize with the GP, we should avoid devolving into purity spirals or we'll never have moments of joy.
It’s possible to both criticise Wikipedia and celebrate it.
You know when you're proud of something and you tell it to someone and they always find something to nitpick while also saying good job. That's what this feels like. It's very unnecessary. Time and a place
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#179Honestly Wikipedia+Archive.org remaining online have national security implications (not just USA, but any democracy). Though I'd wager the current administration would take a different view.
Getting ready for doomsday? You need a solar powered, wifi-enabled, offline wikipedia server.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#180Wikipedia has plenty of propaganda. It's often at the fringes of knowledge, in niche subjects where there isn't yet an established group of proponents and detractors. It can be quite subtle too, will fool most laypeople, even those who are otherwise intellectually savvy. It's only when a subject becomes popular that the propaganda gets recognized and rectified.
And? Share an example. This reads like conspiratorial thinking without any evidence.
This is not exactly propaganda in the typical sense, but it clearly is the case that people successfully edit Wikipedia to further objectives. As an example, the Wikipedia page for Meta-analysis (which isn't even that obscure of a topic) currently contains content that seems to plausibly be trying to promote Suhail Doi's methods, and it seems that it has been like this for a number of years. It cites 5 papers from him, more than anyone else, of which the largest has 297 citations. It has a subsection devoted to his method of meta-analysis, despite it being a rather obscure and rarely used method. There have been additional subsections added over time, which also focus on somewhat obscure areas, but frankly these additions are sketchy in similar ways.
In general, it is not uncommon to come across slantedness issues. Is it completely 100% clear that Doi has come on and maliciously added his papers? Not quite, but good propaganda wouldn't be either, and would actually be far less suspicious-looking.