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

471–480 of 496 posts

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#471

Post by fnikacevic »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #127
fnikacevic wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only specific example from that nypost article is about Fox News not being allowed as a source. Fox news has been found in court to be guilty of defamation and has argued in court that it cannot be considered news, only entertainment. So do you want reality or reality TV on Wikipedia? Should we consider Ancient Aliens as a source?

You're not trying very hard to see a side that's different from yours, are you? You are responding to a comment saying "leftist != realistic", yet you seem to be pretending my intent was to say "here's proof Wikipedia is left-leaning." Neither of my links were given to "prove" bias, either, only to show that accusations of leftwing bias are accusations that Wikipedia is valuing propaganda over truth and objectivity.…

Look if you'd rather trust Fox News than Wikipedia feel free. None of those 4 sources are much convincing of your point.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#472

Post by fnikacevic »

Clamchop wrote: post #103
fnikacevic wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only specific example from that nypost article is about Fox News not being allowed as a source. Fox news has been found in court to be guilty of defamation and has argued in court that it cannot be considered news, only entertainment. So do you want reality or reality TV on Wikipedia? Should we consider Ancient Aliens as a source?

Fox News argued in court that their political commentary programming isn't news. They didn't argue that none of their programming is news.

They defamed Dominion so much on their "news" programs that they have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars. Great "news" source.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#473

Post by hitekker »

praestigiare wrote: post #452
Gareth321 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can, but perhaps not with the specificity that you'd like. I should also preface this by saying I was involved in a community which is often stereotyped and denigrated by those on the "online left." When I was younger my parents divorced and my dad was treated very badly by the courts, by friends, and by society. He is a good man and I saw the ways in which he was systematically marginalised and outright discrimina…

I am actually not sure that this is an example of bias, at least not in the direction that you seem to be implying. Though I appreciate your strong connection to the subject, the purpose of the Wikipedia page for a topic is not to advocate, but to describe. I don't think it is very controversial to say that the term "feminism" has a more widespread common understanding than the term "men's rights." I empathize with t…

I wouldn’t patronize the GP. They described a double standard which can’t be dismissed by therapy talk / an appeal to the mainstream.

Rather, there’s a real political legitimacy behind their frustration as the election has demonstrated. The GP's experience ought to be documented carefully and posted in a blog for others to learn from.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#474

Post by Clamchop »

fnikacevic wrote: post #472
Clamchop wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fox News argued in court that their political commentary programming isn't news. They didn't argue that none of their programming is news.

They defamed Dominion so much on their "news" programs that they have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars. Great "news" source.

I don't disagree that Fox News is problematic for lots of reasons and I also have personal grievances with how they and similar outlets have affected several members of my family. That said, it's become folk knowledge that Fox News doesn't even think they're news, but that's simply a misunderstanding of the case. There's a tiny bit of irony that there are those who are patting themselves on the back for being above misinformation and getting this important detail wrong.

I've seen the actual news that comes from them and while it's certainly biased rightward, particularly in what they choose to report on, it's not outrageously so.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#475

Post by straydusk »

crote wrote: post #123
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...

Just because the policies are supposed to be neutral doesn't mean the resulting work is guaranteed to be truly neutral. Whether something is definitely a fact or an opinion can be very fluid, and you can play a lot with the amount of attention each viewpoint gets. Even a "neutral" article can end up reading completely differently when one viewpoint is very detailed and described in a fact-like way, while another only…

Then give an example

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#476

Post by straydusk »

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

Jesus Christ Reuters is left-leaning lmao in what universe

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#477

Post by slater »

straydusk wrote: post #475
crote wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the policies are supposed to be neutral doesn't mean the resulting work is guaranteed to be truly neutral. Whether something is definitely a fact or an opinion can be very fluid, and you can play a lot with the amount of attention each viewpoint gets. Even a "neutral" article can end up reading completely differently when one viewpoint is very detailed and described in a fact-like way, while another only…

Then give an example

You're unlikely to get one; these discussions are usually just a speedrun to that "which opinions, mfer?" goose meme

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#478

Post by straydusk »

Andrex wrote: post #98
voxl wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? Share an example. This reads like conspiratorial thinking without any evidence.

Not the OP but I'll back him up, and I'll edit this comment when I come across them. They're pretty common. If the domain of knowledge is niche and the page is absolutely huge, that's a good sign to start looking for editoralizations and slants. A lot of wiki pages about smaller companies only list the good things (fundraising, tech, etc.) and omit any controversies. The deliberate omissions due to bias are even more…

Share an example then

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#479

Post by aspenmayer »

aspenmayer wrote: post #411
bawolff wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Were any changes to Wikipedia policies implemented as a result of this, and if so, do you know which ones? Not that i'm aware but it was a long time ago so i might just not be aware. Note that the majority of the files he deleted were undeleted and are still present to this day. The list is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&... and most of the links are blue. > I found the link to the d…

Appreciate the thorough concise reply. I did hear about the hiding of anonymous users’ IPs in passing as I was looking into the .onion URL for Wikipedia concept. I was looking at stuff like TorBlock and thinking that they’re so close and yet so far from having a Tor accessible view or subsite. It could be a special view like the .m mobile views, or something. It could be made to work, but it would take some doing. ht…

I misspoke. It was the Richmond district. I used to live there and also Sunset in one of the towers, so I mixed them up. I’m away from the Bay Area atm, but still have family ties there so I visit when I can.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#480

Post by mdnahas »

trollbridge wrote: post #342
stevage wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Basically. Things that don’t rely either ads or data collection.

I think that’s the key. When users pay, the company works to serve them better. When advertisers pay, the incentives are to attract users by any means (blinking lights, big emotions, fraud, etc.) and keep them on the website longer.

The latest example of this behavior for me is recipe websites that do SEO to get the top spot on Google and then serve you a 30-page long webpage full of ads with the recipe at the bottom.

I think a huge part of the world’s current problems come from “news” sites that are funded by ads.

Post reply on HN