31–40 of 147 posts
most 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/
misleading 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.
The current page was created in 2014. [edit: Although it looks like everything before 2018 got deleted in 2018? I don't understand all the notation on the history page. [0]] This is after she served in various roles (including president) at The Optical Society, and of course after developing chirped pulse amplification, for which she won the Nobel, during the 1980s . [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don…
most 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?
Or historical facts which should be presented as being unbiased and isn't something which is now changing (unless we find an ancient dvd player in the pyramids).
If this existed and Wikipedia worked with this "factopedia" to pull from it I'd very happily contribute.
Potentially a wiki with some basic checks for having at least an undergraduate in the field of question?
Typical Wrote up a long description about how the equipment I used for my master's worked (fleshing out a stub article). Only to have some moderator (being extremely polite here) revert the whole thing because it was "uncited". When challenged I ended up getting temp banned for telling them "I know how it works I just built one". Haven't trusted or contributed since it's moving closer to a collective "what we want to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You are missing the point of the article. This woman WAS prominent AND doing notable work AND was still deleted. The Nobel Prize, for the most part, recognizes notable work by prominent scientists.
Typical Wrote up a long description about how the equipment I used for my master's worked (fleshing out a stub article). Only to have some moderator (being extremely polite here) revert the whole thing because it was "uncited". When challenged I ended up getting temp banned for telling them "I know how it works I just built one". Haven't trusted or contributed since it's moving closer to a collective "what we want to…
At this point I'm willing to go to go toe on this on a typical debate perspective. If I'm being voted down what is so great about the ignorance of the masses here? Wikipedia has some serious (and in come cases concerningly anti-science) biases. Which is honestly love for them to address at a community level.
Typical Wrote up a long description about how the equipment I used for my master's worked (fleshing out a stub article). Only to have some moderator (being extremely polite here) revert the whole thing because it was "uncited". When challenged I ended up getting temp banned for telling them "I know how it works I just built one". Haven't trusted or contributed since it's moving closer to a collective "what we want to…
So Wikipedia is built primarily around not even primary sources but secondary sources for a good reason.
Yes it may lose out in some valuable knowledge such as yours in the process -- but it achieves a greater good of minimizing Wikipedia being flooded by incorrect or even harmful information.
In the absence of an omniscient impartial arbitrer, requiring citations of secondary sources is a pretty good rule.
Typical Wrote up a long description about how the equipment I used for my master's worked (fleshing out a stub article). Only to have some moderator (being extremely polite here) revert the whole thing because it was "uncited". When challenged I ended up getting temp banned for telling them "I know how it works I just built one". Haven't trusted or contributed since it's moving closer to a collective "what we want to…
I know it's frustrating to write true things and have them deleted, but I hope you understand how bad it would be to generalize the rule "accept uncited/unverified claims as true if the account who wrote them says it's true." I say this as someone who spent weeks writing up a new Wikipedia article with 50 citations and then had it graded a C because I used too many primary sources instead of secondary sources. I empa…
I'd argue having an unpolished article in need of work is better than a stub as it encourages interaction.
Not to mention being told to stop using a paywall for citing a journal (which is now out of print) as a source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Before rise to prominence? Presumably she did not publish the work that won her the Nobel and win it on the same day. Surely publishing Nobel-level work in your field means you have already "risen to prominence."