441–450 of 496 posts
Ad driven sites broke the internet; they might have broken society to some degree as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
even if we completely ignore organizational structure, do you truly believe not holding companies accountable for a few rogue employees is a good call? Is it too difficult for higher-ups to blame the rank-and-file and arrange scapegoats in the opaque black box that is a corporation? and even still, we can ignore this potential precedent and focus on motivation only: if an employee uses illegal means as a tool to reac…
This is all already happening, that's why we know about it. But there's also nuance. Was piracy Meta corporate strategy, as implied ad nauseam on here, or was it some guy taking a shortcut? Is it actually bad that Meta trained their AI on books? No, court already decided that it's substantially transformative and doesn't harm the publishers. Should Meta employees have stolen the books? No, obviously not. The middle m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what is better? I mean yes, reading 20 sources on a topic and coming to your own conclusions about an issue is the right answer, but the fact that Wikipedia published its edit history and discussions page makes it seem better than then what everything? Almost every book you read about Israel Palestine will probably be biased in some way, certainly the news will be. It feels like perfect being the enemy of good. L…
I seek out individuals I think are smart from a variety of places and read a lot - I'm not sure if there's another way. The more I do this, the more I have a general dislike for wikipedia. The problem with wikipedia is it pretends to be above the fray and as a result it's deceptive. People think they're getting a neutral topic overview when they're actually getting something that's been designed to persuade based on…
Right but then this isn’t the purpose of an encyclopedia. Like great! But it feels like you’re saying “the more I cook fresh meals, the less I like microwave dinners”. I should Hope so!
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.…"
https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/is-wikipedia-politically-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.…"
A quantitative look which might interest you: https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/is-wikipedia-politically-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I seek out individuals I think are smart from a variety of places and read a lot - I'm not sure if there's another way. The more I do this, the more I have a general dislike for wikipedia. The problem with wikipedia is it pretends to be above the fray and as a result it's deceptive. People think they're getting a neutral topic overview when they're actually getting something that's been designed to persuade based on…
“I seek out individuals I think are smart from a variety of places and read a lot - I'm not sure if there's another way. The more I do this, the more I have a general dislike for wikipedia.” Right but then this isn’t the purpose of an encyclopedia. Like great! But it feels like you’re saying “the more I cook fresh meals, the less I like microwave dinners”. I should Hope so!
The bad part is people (including many in the comments here) don’t realize this.
A good encyclopedia doesn’t push an ideological agenda.
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?
Its simply impossible to edit a public figures page at this point if you want an easy fail case to try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia isn’t a person. Wikipedia isn’t doing anything. Individuals and groups, be they ad-hoc formations, corporate backed, or nation-state backed routinely astroturf all corners of the internet and Wikipedia is a very big, very common target.
Sure but this thread is in response to a statement starting with "Wikipedia is biased".
No I will not waste my time researching proof for someone that is being intentionally obtuse. If you have interest you can easily find it by doing some research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
stupid reality and its left wing bias
This cute phrase was much more believable before Democrats were so insistently wrong about so many important things during COVID (lab leak theory, efficacy of cloth mask mandates, arresting surfers on the beach, natural versus vaccine immunity).
Appreciate the archive link, don’t know how to directly reply to a comment.
Don't you see the "reply" link underneath each comment?
(Not that I necessarily agree with this practice. Don't decapitate the messenger)