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

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 496 posts

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#321

Post by InMice »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #269
Nition wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have sometimes thought about firing up my old Encarta 98 CD. A bit outdated now though.

I think you might be surprised, a lot of information on there is pretty timeless. Before Encarta and the internet, people would buy series of encyclopedias - but they wouldn't buy new ones every year. I'm seeing an ISO for Encarta on the Internet Archive, but I was hoping for a runnable version.

Dont use iso. Pick up an original CD for cheap on ebay. It's not the same without disc spinning

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#322

Post by navigate8310 »

jl6 wrote: post #233

Wikipedia is fabulous. I wish educators would stop telling people that it’s not reliable, and start using it to teach media literacy - which, for wiki purposes, is essentially to read the talk page to see what viewpoints have been included and excluded and why.

As a general site awareness program, Wikipedia, needs to highlight people to go and read the talk page. Many users are not able to appreciate this vibrant section of the website and assume facts of the article at face value.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#323

Post by Antibabelic »

alex1138 wrote: post #164

I can't defend Wiki any further after their politicization How about not calling Peter McCullough or Ryan Cole or Pierre Kory misinformation spreaders about covid when they were right the whole time Larry Sanger was correct Edit: (I know we're not supposed to comment on downvotes but I seriously don't care) Those of you who insta-downvote stuff like this should not enjoy the privileges of the karma system on HN that…

The goal of Wikipedia has always been to summarize what mainstream secondary sources say, not what is "true" or "right" according to your or some other editor's personal opinion. See WP:DUE, WP:VNT and WP:RGW

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#324

Post by tim333 »

Whoppertime wrote: post #109

Wikipedia 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

>If you ask it about anything political it's going to be from a certain slant

I'm not sure if there's anything else out there that's better at giving a fairly neutral summary of political controversies?

It reminds me of the Churchill quote "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#325

Post by jasonlotito »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #310
xorvoid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say this is all we really should reasonably expect from our knowledge consensus systems. In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our best everyday and continue to try improving. It’s a bit hard for me to imagine something better (in practice). It’s easy to want more or feel like reality doesn’t live up to one’s idealism. But we live here and now in the messiness of the present. Viva la Wikip…

> I would say this is all we really should reasonably expect from our knowledge consensus systems. Compare this text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_configuration : >> The most common labeling method uses the descriptors R or S and is based on the Cahn–Ingold–Prelog priority rules. R and S refer to rectus and sinister , Latin for right and left, respectively.[2] This claim is actually repeated further dow…

> The fact that it is false was noted on the talk page seven years ago, but this seems to bother no one.

From the talk page:

"This is inaccurate, as the linked Wikitionary page defines rectus as straight, not right"

From the Wiktionary page referenced: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rectus

   - led straight along, drawn in a straight line, straight, upright. 
   - (in general) right, correct, proper, appropriate, befitting.
   - (in particular) morally right, correct, lawful, just, virtuous, noble, good, proper, honest.
The rest of talk page comment: "I was told during my education that the rectus-right definition was used by Robert Sidney Cahn as an excuse to use his own initials, although I cannot find a source to back that up."

So, the wiktionary page literally defines it as right, and we see that it's not about direction but about being correct or incorrect. And then the follow up has literally no source to back it up.

So... "I think we can reasonably expect more."

The first claim is debunked. The second claim has nothing to back it up.

Is your proposal then to accept lies and claims without evidence?

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#326

Post by stevage »

bawolff wrote: post #12

There has been this trend recently of calling Wikipedia the last good thing on the internet. And i agree its great, i spend an inordinate amount of my time on Wikimedia related things. But i think there is a danger here with all these articles putting Wikipedia too much on a pedestal. It isn't perfect. It isn't perfectly neutral or perfectly reliable. It has flaws. The true best part of Wikipedia is that its a work i…

I would say that OpenStreetMap is also a pretty good thing on the internet. Maybe not quite as impactful, and I'd say less well run, and rougher around the edges, but it's largely resisted being taken over by evil corporations or heavily influenced in bad directions.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#327

Post by justin66 »

krmboya wrote: post #177
savef wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> without providing a counterbalance from right-leaning sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#328

Post by joenot443 »

ragazzina wrote: post #308
citizenpaul wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure I go there less and less. Wikipedia is very biased and turf guarded against negative factually true information even when it meets all requirements it will often be taken down automatically with no recourse. Many pages are functionally not editable because of turf guarding. Anything vaguely sociopolitical is functionally censored on it and wikipedia does nothing about it even if they don't support it.

>factually true information [...] meets all requirements [...] it will be taken down Can you make such an example?

A very simple example are ongoing cases where the identity of a perpetrator has been released by smaller or local agencies but not by larger ones. There are countless, countless other examples too, I can walk you through some others if it’ll be helpful.

Wikipedia doesn’t treat all sources as being equal, so even in cases where there’s no reasonable doubt towards a claim’s veracity, if the correct source hasn’t already claimed it, editors are liable to revert your edit.

Obviously this is a phenomenon that occurs much more often in ongoing or politically sensitive stories. That said, it’s important for people to understand the flaws in Wikipedias method of epistemology.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#329

Post by BenjiWiebe »

InMice wrote: post #321
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be surprised, a lot of information on there is pretty timeless. Before Encarta and the internet, people would buy series of encyclopedias - but they wouldn't buy new ones every year. I'm seeing an ISO for Encarta on the Internet Archive, but I was hoping for a runnable version.

Dont use iso. Pick up an original CD for cheap on ebay. It's not the same without disc spinning

An iso can easily be burned to a CD, too.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#330

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

kortilla wrote: post #319
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to edit for wikipedia. I saw a "problem" where a specific troll factory was pushing a particular narrative which is factually contrary to international law. I held out for as long as I could but it was emotionally draining

What does that mean? Laws don’t define truth.

will of the people does? what is truth?
Post reply on HN