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

461–470 of 496 posts

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#461

Post by wiether »

citizenpaul wrote: post #447
ragazzina wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No. I've found this is one of those things that people simply have to see for themselves. I'd encourage you to try to make some edits and see what happens. Its simply impossible to edit a public figures page at this point if you want an easy fail case to try.

> Its simply impossible to edit a public figures page at this point if you want an easy fail case to try.

Why should a complete random be allowed to edit a public figure's page without some overview? What could they possibly edit that is relevant to this figure's page?

If a public figure dies, their page will be updated in less than one hour of the announcement, so the edit is not the issue.

It seems healthy to have people gatekeeping those pages, since they are not a public forum, but a common source of knowledge.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#462

Post by BlueTemplar »

macintux wrote: post #315
BlueTemplar wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still puzzled after all these years : why would anyone use search engine bangs instead of directly configuring custom searches from their browser's URL bar ?

Because I know how to use search engine bangs, and I have no idea what a “custom search” would look like. After probably 15 years of using DDG the bangs are just part of my muscle memory. Why bother changing things?

Well, my question then is why didn't you use custom search before DDG added bangs ?

Today in Firefox : right click on a search field, add search engine. Pretty sure that this evolved from that separate search field that browsers used to have in addition to the URL field ?

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#463

Post by BlueTemplar »

danhor wrote: post #317
BlueTemplar wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still puzzled after all these years : why would anyone use search engine bangs instead of directly configuring custom searches from their browser's URL bar ?

It takes a bit of effort to add all you would want and, for me personally, bangs can be anywhere instead of having to be at the start of a search query as is needed for custom search keywords.

Well, it would take effort to add custom bangs too, it's not like DDG has pre-made bangs for every website...

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#465

Post by BrtByte »

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…

What makes it remarkable isn't that it gets everything right, but that it's constantly trying to

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#466

Post by BrtByte »

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

Compared to opaque algorithms and AI-generated summaries, Wikipedia still feels like a relatively honest mess

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#467

Post by stogot »

visarga wrote: post #48
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…

> In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our best everyday and continue to try improving. Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it. But philosophers still talk about Truth, they didn't get the message. As long as we are using leaky abstractions - which means all the time - we can't capture Truth. There is no view from nowhere.

That’s a bad take. Science does seek Truth. Take physics’ equations and the universal constants for example. Don’t act like there’s not objective, truthful realities that are undiscovered.

Social “sciences”, humanities, and psychology maybe different

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#468

Post by homefree »

techpineapple wrote: post #456
homefree wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia fails at its purpose is more my point - it pretends to be something it’s not. The bad part is people (including many in the comments here) don’t realize this. A good encyclopedia doesn’t push an ideological agenda.

“A good encyclopedia doesn’t push an ideological agenda” But this is the no true Scotsman fallacy, encyclopedia’s are inherently biased. A good _______ doesn’t push an ideological agenda but they all do. I think I would argue Wikipedia less and more transparently than most. They just cover a lot more and are the main one so you see it a lot more. This article suggests for instance that though Wikipedia’s does indeed…

There’s no point in continuing our discussion (are you a Wikipedia editor - this thread feels like I’m talking to one), the articles I link to show it’s much worse than you suggest.

It’s beyond inherent bias, it’s explicitly weaponized for a particular point of view which it does a lot of work to try to hide.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#469

Post by [deleted] »

homefree wrote: post #468
techpineapple wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A good encyclopedia doesn’t push an ideological agenda” But this is the no true Scotsman fallacy, encyclopedia’s are inherently biased. A good _______ doesn’t push an ideological agenda but they all do. I think I would argue Wikipedia less and more transparently than most. They just cover a lot more and are the main one so you see it a lot more. This article suggests for instance that though Wikipedia’s does indeed…

There’s no point in continuing our discussion (are you a Wikipedia editor - this thread feels like I’m talking to one), the articles I link to show it’s much worse than you suggest. It’s beyond inherent bias, it’s explicitly weaponized for a particular point of view which it does a lot of work to try to hide.

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#470

Post by techpineapple »

homefree wrote: post #468
techpineapple wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A good encyclopedia doesn’t push an ideological agenda” But this is the no true Scotsman fallacy, encyclopedia’s are inherently biased. A good _______ doesn’t push an ideological agenda but they all do. I think I would argue Wikipedia less and more transparently than most. They just cover a lot more and are the main one so you see it a lot more. This article suggests for instance that though Wikipedia’s does indeed…

There’s no point in continuing our discussion (are you a Wikipedia editor - this thread feels like I’m talking to one), the articles I link to show it’s much worse than you suggest. It’s beyond inherent bias, it’s explicitly weaponized for a particular point of view which it does a lot of work to try to hide.

A, singular? Which specific point of view is it weaponized for that it’s trying to hide?

Maybe you’re not skeptical enough.

Me a Wikipedia editor?! blushes no? These days I just let ChatGPT tell me what to think, it’s more objective and rational since it’s just the thoughts of a computer and not messy human emotions.

Post reply on HN