Important recent context - just a few days ago House Republicans asked Wikipedia to reveal the name of some editors: https://truthout.org/articles/house-republicans-investigate-...
[flagged]
Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
81–90 of 496 posts
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#82They’ve always have had a leftist bias like most of big tech. https://x.com/therabbithole84/status/1957598712693452920?s=4...
aka, biased towards reality
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#83They’ve always have had a leftist bias like most of big tech. https://x.com/therabbithole84/status/1957598712693452920?s=4...
[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi. I was an arbitrator who voted to suspend that arbitrator. There was no doxxing involved, which anyone can verify. Barely anything else in your comment is correct either. Doxxing is an issue but from where I sit it's much worse from people outside Wikipedia.
This comment is farcical. Supposing you are right and that there was "no doxxing involved", it's still impossible for an outsider like most of us here, to verify it. Especially if there is such a thing as non-public discourse of any kind. It is not a transparent organization, and it does not even pay lip service to the effort of transparency. It is large enough of an organization that it is an absurd claim, on its fa…
When I said anyone can verify it, I meant it; go make an account on wikipediocracy, go to the "Wikimedian Folks Too Embarrassing for Public Viewing" forums, and go through the posts by that user.
Quite to the contrary, it's a very transparent organization because edit histories are public. It would be trivial to link to any instances of doxxing on the project, unless they don't exist, which they don't. Wikipediocracy doesn't count when talking about Wikipedia doxxing.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#85Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#86> Because Wikipedia was under a Creative Commons license, anyone who didn’t like the way the project was run could copy it and start their own, as a group of Spanish users did when the possibility of running ads was raised in 2002.
Correction on this: Wikipedia was GFDL until 2009. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Licensing_update .
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#87Earlier 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.
> Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it.
I don't quite agree with this, unless what you mean is that there's no procedure we can follow which generates knowledge without the possibility of error. This doesn't mean that there's no such thing as truth, or that we can't generate knowledge. It just means that we can never guarantee that our knowledge doesn't contain errors. Another way to put this (for the philosophers among us) is that there is no way to justify a belief (such as a scientific theory) and as such there is no such thing as "justified true belief." But again, this doesn't mean that we cannot generate knowledge about the world.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
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?
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's handy to have a neutral place I can look up books or passages of the Christian Bible so that I have a reference point when talking to people about it
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#90Wikipedia has plenty of propaganda. It's often at the fringes of knowledge, in niche subjects where there isn't yet an established group of proponents and detractors. It can be quite subtle too, will fool most laypeople, even those who are otherwise intellectually savvy. It's only when a subject becomes popular that the propaganda gets recognized and rectified.
And? Share an example. This reads like conspiratorial thinking without any evidence.