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

Tim Bray on Grokipedia

tbray.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 243 posts

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#231

Post by cowboylowrez »

whatthesmack wrote: post #221
ValveFan6969 wrote: post #174

On the other hand, I click on a Wikipedia article and I'm immediately bombarded with "[blank] is an alt-right neo-nazi fascist authoritarian homophobic transphobic bigoted conspiracy theory (Source: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HATE THIS TOPIC I BEG YOU)" At least Grokipedia tries to look like it was written with the intent to inform, not spoonfeed an opinion.

> At least Grokipedia tries to look like it was written with the intent to inform, not spoonfeed an opinion. In addition, Grokipedia isn't encumbered by a Perennial Sources List[0] whose "generally reliable" section consists entirely of center and/or center-left media sources, and seems to be entirely purposed for gatekeeping. The web site of the US television news network with by far the most viewership (Fox) was mo…

As a counterpoint, I found wikipedia's "perennial_sources_list" to be a pretty reasonable efficiency measure. Additionally whats the problem with wikipedia's entry about "artic frost"? (your [1] did not link to anything regarding that entry)

>This is broadly demonstrated by Wikipedia's constant decline in traffic from 2022 (~165M visits/day) through the present (~128M visits/day)[3].

This demonstrates only the decrease in web traffic, and there are plenty of discussions about the reasons why and I suspect that conservatives didn't all of a sudden decide to hate wikipedia starting in 2022 as you seem to imply.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#232

Post by cowboylowrez »

lapcat wrote: post #230
cowboylowrez wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure sure, but what happens if someone isn't 100 percent behind their opinions? Initial assessments for instance could very well attempt to see problems or anticipate arguments for or against particular viewpoints.

That's fine, but you should attribute your certainty or uncertainty, as the case may be, to yourself and not to "the devil." It's vastly more honest to say, "I'm not sure about this" than "Devil's advocate: blah blah blah". Besides hiding behind the devil, the devil's advocate makes the devil look more confident than he should be.

yeah but you're sort of attributing dishonesty to someones post when I don't think it merits it.

>There's a big difference between listening to other perspectives and inventing other perspectives.

while there's a big difference, the difference doesn't invalidate thinking through issues and searching for the actual conflicting views. "Devil's advocate" is a common enough term, whats the big deal? Is it the word "devil"? Do you think someone is calling you Satan?

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#233

Post by lapcat »

cowboylowrez wrote: post #232
lapcat wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, but you should attribute your certainty or uncertainty, as the case may be, to yourself and not to "the devil." It's vastly more honest to say, "I'm not sure about this" than "Devil's advocate: blah blah blah". Besides hiding behind the devil, the devil's advocate makes the devil look more confident than he should be.

yeah but you're sort of attributing dishonesty to someones post when I don't think it merits it. >There's a big difference between listening to other perspectives and inventing other perspectives. while there's a big difference, the difference doesn't invalidate thinking through issues and searching for the actual conflicting views. "Devil's advocate" is a common enough term, whats the big deal? Is it the word "devil…

> yeah but you're sort of attributing dishonesty to someones post when I don't think it merits it.

There's a potential for dishonesty, but lack of honesty can also mean just opacity or reticence. Either way, openness and honesty are superior.

I do think that sometimes people say "devil's advocate" when it's their own opinion but an "unpopular" opinion that they may be embarrassed to admit, so they hide behind the devil, pretending they're not the devil themselves.

> "Devil's advocate" is a common enough term, whats the big deal? Is it the word "devil"? Do you think someone is calling you Satan?

No. The issue is not the term. A different term would not help. But the term is instructive about its own usage. In the Catholic Church, nobody wanted to argue against a potential saint, so someone had to be specifically appointed by the Church to argue the other side, a position the arguer didn't necessarily believe. The problem with devil's advocates online is that they're self-appointed for some reason, despite the fact that usually there are already people who sincerely believe that opinion and would argue for it, without the need for a devil's advocate. The Catholic Church canonization process is completely different from online arguments, and there's no need for the special role of the devil's advocate.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#234

Post by smitty1e »

thrance wrote: post #210
smitty1e wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To use your terminology, the perception that Wikipedia is "ideologically captured" stands.

How so? Because the community collectively refuses to host antivax or climate denialism propaganda? You can find these subjects on there btw, just with a mention correctly labelling them as falsehoods. I'm yet to see conservatives bring up a single subject that Wikipedia allegedly silences out of ideology, that is not an obviously false conspiracy theory. In this, Wikipedia may appear to have a left-wing bias, but on…

> "climate denialism propaganda"

Q.E.D.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#235

Post by cowboylowrez »

lapcat wrote: post #233
cowboylowrez wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah but you're sort of attributing dishonesty to someones post when I don't think it merits it. >There's a big difference between listening to other perspectives and inventing other perspectives. while there's a big difference, the difference doesn't invalidate thinking through issues and searching for the actual conflicting views. "Devil's advocate" is a common enough term, whats the big deal? Is it the word "devil…

> yeah but you're sort of attributing dishonesty to someones post when I don't think it merits it. There's a potential for dishonesty, but lack of honesty can also mean just opacity or reticence. Either way, openness and honesty are superior. I do think that sometimes people say "devil's advocate" when it's their own opinion but an "unpopular" opinion that they may be embarrassed to admit, so they hide behind the dev…

I actually like the role of devils advocate and can appreciate it. This fondness is not decreased by your assertion that there is no need. I do like your history on the terms origin, but again I don't think it follows that there is "no need" for the role, but maybe the role can exist without the appropriation of the historical term.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#236

Post by thrance »

smitty1e wrote: post #234
thrance wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Because the community collectively refuses to host antivax or climate denialism propaganda? You can find these subjects on there btw, just with a mention correctly labelling them as falsehoods. I'm yet to see conservatives bring up a single subject that Wikipedia allegedly silences out of ideology, that is not an obviously false conspiracy theory. In this, Wikipedia may appear to have a left-wing bias, but on…

> "climate denialism propaganda" Q.E.D.

Oh, you don't believe in climate change. Well, there we go. This explains that. Conservative propaganda has made you unable to distinguish truth from obvious lies, hence why you think Wikipedia is so biased. Have you considered your own biases?

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#237

Post by thrance »

physarum_salad wrote: post #228
thrance wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact you're still eluding isn't very funny though. Please share just one, that we may discuss it.

Omission by design or by accident/lack of resources can be found in most pages on wikipedia.

One example, just one. Please.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#238

Post by cindyllm »

thrance wrote: post #236
smitty1e wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "climate denialism propaganda" Q.E.D.

Oh, you don't believe in climate change. Well, there we go. This explains that. Conservative propaganda has made you unable to distinguish truth from obvious lies, hence why you think Wikipedia is so biased. Have you considered your own biases?

[dead]

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#239

Post by mlmonkey »

wtfwhateven wrote: post #204
ares623 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP delivered. I'm not a Wikipedia editor so I don't know what kind of sources are allowed, but just on a gut-feel, that worldbank.org source seems okay?

He didn't deliver. He should just link to the actual revisions that were reverted. The fact he refuses to is telling. He was definitely not banned as a result of his story, he definitely did something egregious (such as repeatedly insulting people on talk pages or repeated vandalism) or was editing without an account and he is portraying a typical residential IP block ban as him being banned for "wrong think". It is…

Maybe I don't want to doxx myself. As I said, it's been a couple of years and I'm over it. I stand nothing to gain by reopening old wounds.

Take it FWIW. But ask yourself: is this the first time you've heard that Wiki editors gang up upon people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not...

Post reply on HN