Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wikipedia

Russia To Upgrade Homegrown Encyclopedia After Putin Pans Wikipedia (reuters.com) 205

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Russia is to set up a new online site for its national encyclopedia after President Vladimir Putin said Wikipedia was unreliable and should be replaced. From a report: The move will ensure people can find "reliable information that is constantly updated on the basis of scientifically verified sources of knowledge," a government resolution said. Putin last month proposed replacing the crowd-sourced online encyclopedia Wikipedia with an electronic version of the Great Russian Encyclopaedia - the successor to the Soviet Union's main encyclopedia. "This, at any rate, would be reliable information offered in a modern form," Putin said then. Further reading: Putin Signs Law Making Russian Apps Mandatory On Smartphones, Computers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia To Upgrade Homegrown Encyclopedia After Putin Pans Wikipedia More

Russia To Upgrade Homegrown Encyclopedia After Putin Pans Wikipedia

Comments Filter:

  • Mother Russia? (Score:3)

    by FeltLion ( 1289024 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @02:29PM (#59481462) Journal
    Which country will collapse into John Smart's information black hole first: China or Russia? As you ponder the question, some background music: https://youtu.be/-o-6ftmw8CE [youtu.be]

  • hmmmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 )
    Well he is right, Wikipedia is horribly unreliable and a really poor source of information (unless you are verifying the information from other sources, thus making it redundant). I wish there was a single good site/source for information and would love to see something replace Wikipedia, but nothing usable will come from any government let alone Russia.

    • Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @02:39PM (#59481522)
      Unless you are looking into some controversial topic, I don't recall finding anything blatantly wrong on Wikipedia. I'm sure it happens, and is a good reason why any respectable person wouldn't/shouldn't accept Wikipedia as a reliable primary source. But, the benefit is they have their (usually) primary sources in-line for people to cite.

      • Some seemingly-irrelevant pages have inaccuracies. A lot of celebrities have noted problems with the Wikipedia pages created for them.

        • A lot of celebrities have noted problems

          Indeed

        • Re:hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @05:27PM (#59482328)
          Biographies and politics have sabotage (not errors).

          Point out any errors on the page for the Model T. Go on. It's more thorough and accurate than some books on the subject. Or the Cessna 172 page. But yes, Taylor Swift's page was ravaged after she gave a political endorsement. That's not an "error". It's deliberate sabotage. If you avoid pages that don't have paid saboteurs, Wikipedia is more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica.

          • Biographies and politics have sabotage (not errors).

            The writer Orson Scott Card said that his biography had numerous errors that he corrected and they were reverted. It probably isn't 'sabotage' in his case - so it is probably both.

        • Some of it's true. There was a long standing inaccuracy a friend of mine inserted in order to prove a point that managed to stay on Wikipedia for almost 15 years until the person the page was about pointed out that they had no idea where that information came from. It was a harmless "fact" that wasn't bad in any way, but the kind of weird trivia that no one would question.

          I have no doubt that some of it swings the other way where celebrities want to deny controversial truths as well, but it's hard to kno

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It depends on how deranged you are. Conservapedia has a long list of things it thinks is wrong with Wikipedia, for example: https://www.conservapedia.com/... [conservapedia.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pascoea ( 968200 )
          Well, that site sure is a lot of fun!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jythie ( 914043 )
          Heh, my first thought was 'oh, so we are getting a Russian version of Conservapedia?'

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rnturn ( 11092 )

          They ought to call that site ``Whineopedia''.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          Wow, the bizarro superman universe from Seinfeld, you've found it!!!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          This post was a bit of a test to see if any fans would mod me troll. If you actually read that site it's pretty batshit. A lot of the arguments stem from Christian texts and fairly literal interpretations.

          These are the people who are supposed to be moderating posts on Slashdot.

          • A bit of a test?

            You mean flamebait in combination with the 5 minutes of hate and virtue signaling.

            It is quite obvious, sitting at +3, that the marxists cunts among the moderators outweigh the nazi cunts.

            Thanks for the data!

        • Holy shit that's hilarious:

          #1:

          Wikipedia's articles on genocide,[10] murder,[11] and homicide[12] have absolutely no mention of abortion,[13] even though it has killed more people than any other genocide.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Chromal ( 56550 )
        It's amazing how some people decide to make topics controversial where no credible controversy exists and then fight it out in the trench warfare of wikipedia edits. I really like the ones where some inbred theocratic kook asserts their fallacious arguments against my gender identity. Even better when they try to erase that identity's existence throughout the millennia.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          Hmmm...well, you have to understand that gender identities are sexual catnip for theocratic kooks.

      • Well, according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

        Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong.

        But, that doesn't stop me from referencing wikipedia to back up my posts. As I just did. Because even though it is not reliable, it is usually surprising reliable.

        Usually.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rho ( 6063 )

        Yeah, Wikipedia is pretty good for a lot of basic facts stuff. For anything vaguely controversial, it's best to treat it kind of like Twitter for current news stories. I.e., a decent place to start, but you should never end there.

        I don't see a problem with Russia making their own free encyclopedia. I'm sure it will be barely disguised propaganda, but for all I know the Russian version of Wikipedia is a wasteland of junk. I don't speak or read Russian, so I have no idea.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @02:41PM (#59481542)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Wikipedia is usually accurate except when it comes to "controversial" topics

        If those topics are "controversial", how do you know it's not accurate? If you knew it wouldn't be controversial.

        • It's easy to look at AOC's Twitter feed and see whether or not this is true:
          AOC said that she was fighting to keep Amazon from building an HQ in New York *because she wanted to instead use the money that Amazon would granted in deferred (delayed) property taxes to hire firefighters and teachers*.

          AOC is a controversial figure. An article on AOC would be a controversial topic. That fact I the article is readily verifiable.

          She either did or did not think that having Amazon NOT build in New York would cause t

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by AxeTheMax ( 1163705 )

            Similarly, you look at UK Home Office stats and see violent crime, rape, and murder roughly double as soon as the gun ban was instituted. Gun laws are a controversial topic, the fact that 70,000 rapes per year is a lot more than 30,000 isn't really subject to debate.

            Crap, and not just that, crap of the type you rarely find even on Wikipedia .

      • Putin isn't remotely interested in truth, and comes from a country that until recently was a communist hellhole,

        Tell us more about this communist country with currency and a class system.

        • Tell us more about this communist country with currency and a class system.

          The USSR had currency and a class system. Not many countries don't.

          • The USSR had currency and a class system. Not many countries don't.

            QED, it was not communist, by definition. And it wasn't trying to be, either. It was socialist, to the extent even that was true.

            • QED, it was not communist, by definition.

              By that definition OTOH, I don't think such a country has ever existed. Nor will it.

              • By that definition OTOH, I don't think such a country has ever existed. Nor will it.

                I don't think such a country has ever existed either, and I doubt that one ever will exist unless we invent the replicator, and thereby transition to a truly post-scarcity existence. And I'm not holding my breath for that, either. I strongly suspect we'll extinguish ourselves before we have a chance to get that far. Consider how much waste we have in our current existence, and that there is more than enough food, water, and housing to serve every human on the planet, yet people still go without all of those

    • Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @02:42PM (#59481548)

      Citation? All the research I've seen puts Wikipedia as, on average, more reliable than any of the traditional paper encyclopedias. Often less reliable for political hot-button topics where edit wars are common, but generally considerably more accurate for everything else.

      • Citation? All the research I've seen puts Wikipedia as, on average, more reliable than any of the traditional paper encyclopedias. Often less reliable for political hot-button topics where edit wars are common, but generally considerably more accurate for everything else.

        So, tell me when exactly is Hitler going to become a not-so-hot-button topic of discussion? How about the Iraq war and WMD? Or perhaps the 2016 election? How often will we allow many people to literally re-write history on the "more reliable" source? How many lies will be cemented as truth simply because a fact checker got tired of the editing battle?

        Sorry, but I fail to see how any part of Wikipedia could be more reliable than books in print. And if you fail to see the value of political history remai

        • Wikipedia may fluctuate - but when printed resources are wrong, they stay that way.

          At least with wikipedia it's easy to tell if an article is controversial (though it would be nice if there was a prominent notification for articles that are in substantial flux)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by strech ( 167037 )

          What makes books in print magically better? Holocaust Deniers have books in print. And working for an encyclopedia company doesn't make your biases magically disappear. Are you suggesting that the old Soviet Encyclopedias have more accurate information on a hot-button topic like Hitler or Stalin than heavily edit-protected pages on Wikipedia?

          There's nothing magical about print books that makes those that work on them without bias. There's no perfect source of information. And at least Wikipedia article

    • Well he is right, Wikipedia is horribly unreliable and a really poor source of information (unless you are verifying the information from other sources, thus making it redundant). I wish there was a single good site/source for information and would love to see something replace Wikipedia, but nothing usable will come from any government let alone Russia.

      The irony of us wishing there was a replacement for the thing that fucking replaced the encyclopedia, also known as that single good source for information that modern societies used for a couple thousand years before the internet came along.

      It's funny how every now and then our modernized ignorance shines through like a turd on fire.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mbkennel ( 97636 )
        >that modern societies used for a couple thousand years before the internet came along.

        maybe 150 to 200 years.

        • >that modern societies used for a couple thousand years before the internet came along. maybe 150 to 200 years.

          Modern society definitions aside, it is Wikipedia reporting that "Encyclopedias have existed for around 2,000 years and have evolved considerably during that time"

          If Wikipedia is wrong, then it only confirms my point.

          • Naturalis Historia was an encyclopedia that was written 2,000 years ago. So now what does that make YOU? Wrong. It makes you wrong. Glad I could help.

            • Naturalis Historia was an encyclopedia that was written 2,000 years ago. So now what does that make YOU? Wrong. It makes you wrong. Glad I could help.

              I was the one who originally stated that we've been using encyclopedias for "a couple thousand years before the internet came along", which someone else tried to state encyclopedias have been in use for "maybe 150 to 200 years."

              You're doing nothing but confirming my original statement. So now what does that make YOU? Someone who has a comprehension problem.

              • Naturalis Historia was an encyclopedia that was written 2,000 years ago.

                I'll bet some of it is wrong too.

                • Naturalis Historia was an encyclopedia that was written 2,000 years ago.

                  I'll bet some of it is wrong too.

                  Very true, but ensuring history is documented accurately is one thing.

                  Preventing society from modifying or even eradicating any part of history, is a completely different problem, and one born in the age of humans trusting shit like the Wikipedia editing system.

      • also known as that single good source for information that modern societies used for a couple thousand years before the internet came along.

        Ahh - but note there wasn't a SINGLE encyclopedia. There were multiple encyclopedias each with their own interpretation of events.

        A monopoly on history and data (which is effectively what Wikipedia is) even objective will have certain facts and stories removed as "not relevant" let alone have misinformation in the actual published articles (controversial or not)

        • also known as that single good source for information that modern societies used for a couple thousand years before the internet came along.

          Ahh - but note there wasn't a SINGLE encyclopedia. There were multiple encyclopedias each with their own interpretation of events.

          The very definition of an encyclopedia insinuates that they are used to create a compendium of knowledge on a particular field or discipline, which that alone would imply there are many encyclopedias, but perhaps only one or two that stand out as THE reference on a particular topic.

          A monopoly on history and data (which is effectively what Wikipedia is) even objective will have certain facts and stories removed as "not relevant" let alone have misinformation in the actual published articles (controversial or not)

          I'm not sure what you're attempting to convey here other than confirming my original point. Wikipedia is FAR from a reliable source because of the editing capability. I'm certainly not saying that traditional encyclopedias wer

    • Well he is right, Wikipedia is horribly unreliable and a really poor source of information (unless you are verifying the information from other sources, thus making it redundant).

      Checking the sources of a general article on a subject is not redundant, it is a very common way to do in-depth research on the subject. (If you went to college and did not figure this out, I am sorry for all the time you could have saved).

      • That's not research, that's regurgitation.

        Unless you're dealing with primary sources (or data you collected from experiments you ran, etc.), you're not doing research. You're merely reading someone else's opinion.

        • That's not research, that's regurgitation.

          Unless you're dealing with primary sources (or data you collected from experiments you ran, etc.), you're not doing research. You're merely reading someone else's opinion.

          Good point! I should have given it more thought or at least been clearer in what I was saying.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          So a Road and Track review of a car, cited in Wikipedia for the curb weight of the tested car is not a primary source?

          Seems that if R&T measured the weight of that car, then that data is a primary source. If they cited the manufacturer's data, then that's not. but lots of sources are primary. As many as possible. Some can't be primary (cited), as the primary is locked behind a paywall, but summaries by those who paid to see over the wall are as close as Wikipedia can cite, and often the uncitable p

    • Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @04:42PM (#59482124)
      If we are judged by our enemies, then wikipedia must be doing something right

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      Wikipedia is wrong only when sabotaged. The details on cars, airplanes, and many other topics is more accurate than the sources it's created from, as conflicting sources can be evaluated and the correct answer is more likely in the Wiki article than the sources it draws from.

      Only in biographies and political subjects does it break down, where someone has money to gain by painting a false picture.

    • Wikipedia is a great source. But, like any source, it has to be used appropriately or it is useless. Wikipedia is one of the rare fulfillments of the promise of what all the optimists about the internet had hoped it would become. If people concerned about vaccines went to Wikipedia instead of Facebook for information we wouldn't have that dumb controversy. But Wikipedia has a bad reputation among idiots. You hear things like, "You don't know who puts stuff on there" even though there are citations. And then

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      A single one makes no sense at all. What should happen is what they are doing in Russia but the encyclopaedia should be linked to all universities for article contributions and hosting shared between countries. Still each country should host their own, favouring their own universities and then linking beyond that from country to country, depending upon articles available and for use with multiple languages. A common sense thing to do and one that should have been done a long time ago.

  • With blackjack and hookers!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Them and horses, he's big on riding horsies with no shirt on (him, not the horsies). It makes him feel like he's not 5' 6". When he's on a horse, he imagines it to be a unicorn. I'll let you fill in from your imagination from where the horn comes. The rest of us just imagine the unicorn is pink.

  • I have said we need an encyclopedia without power tripping reverters and notability police. But it shoudn't come from a government.

    • Agreed, I was having very obvious *grammar* edits reverted in seconds/minutes the other day. It was not debatable. there were misplaced commas that is wrong in any version of english, no explanation given. I have had quoted text "anglicized" by changing the spelling to the British version - on a quote by an American about an American topic.

      They removed photos I took, licensed, and posted *myself* due to "copyright violation" or some such on another page. One idiot "reverted" text I didn't write, the

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by starless ( 60879 )

        Agreed, I was having very obvious *grammar* edits reverted in seconds/minutes the other day. It was not debatable. there were misplaced commas that is wrong in any version of english, no explanation given. I have had quoted text "anglicized" by changing the spelling to the British version - on a quote by an American about an American topic.

        there were -> There were
        that is wrong -> That are wrong
        english -> English

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        Some people feel they "own" a page. The system of promoting "reliable" contributors is simply broken. I edited lots in the beginning, then ran into problems like you describe, and ended up giving up. Popular pages are too political. Not Republican/Democrat political, but editing cliques and Internet Fuckwad Fiefdoms.

  • Coming to the web near you!

  • They already picked out a name for it: Pravdapedia

  • Slashdot, I am disappoint. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @02:48PM (#59481574)

    9 posts and not one of them begins In Soviet Russia. Come on people! There hasn't been a richer meme target on this site in years! Here here, I'll start...

    In Soviet Russia, Encyclopedia looks up YOU!

    Yeah ok, pretty weak. What can I say, I'm not a 15 year old memelord.

  • Always want to silence others. And they will use any excuse to do it. State Secrets, National Security, Privacy, & the new ones... "Fake News" & of course "Hate Speech".

    They will always result in suppression of a peoples voice, because that is 100% always the intended effect. Period, end of discussion!

  • How many of us know people that screw up wikipedia entries just because they're bored? How can any source of information that anyone can screw up at will, be considered correct or reliable?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      The targets are not the page on Cessna 172, with someone modifying the operating ceiling. The people that screw with Wikipedia do so on popular pages, seeing how long an edit that claims Taylor Swift is a Satanist stays up, or reverting everything on a page for the fun of it.

    • How many of us know people that screw up wikipedia entries just because they're bored?

      I don't know anyone who does that. Your acquaintances have too much time on their hands.

      How can any source of information that anyone can screw up at will, be considered correct or reliable?

      The moderators lock the really controversial topics. If I print a bunch of lies, stamp "Oxford University Press" on it, and then bind the pages with glue, would you consider it to be a reliable source? Sources are not binary—they do not just have a value of true or false. No matter how seemingly reliable a source is, you're still responsible for assessing the validity of its claims.

  • "Russia to copy Wikipedia, remove a few negative articles, Republish under another name"

  • Will Russia redirect Wikipedia traffic to their new site? Will the new site emulate the appearance of Wikipedia such that users think they are connected to Wikipedia? If so then this is a big step backwards for Russia.

  • Must be why Wikipedia is in such a panic! I looked at an article there earlier today and saw the biggest banner begging for money that I've ever seen on their website. It took up half the screen and was begging how $2.75 from everyone could fund the website for years and all we'd have to do was give up a single coffee. I scrolled down and a new scrolling ad replaced it at the top of the screen. Got rid of that and scrolled down... and a new scrolling ad appeared at the bottom of the screen.

    Oh wait, t

  • The Russians will claiming that they invented [fill-in-the-blank]. It'll be like listening to Chehov on the original Star Trek.

  • "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

    I guess Putin is in control of the present.

  • English articles are good, even very accurate. Other languages... well... forget it, just tell them to learn English.

  • He's writing the history of that great Russian innovation - quatro-triticale.

  • Good for him. It's nice to see someone taking action on this. Russia is a bastion of highly reliable information, free speech and all around togetherness. It will be interesting to see the Wiki article about it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • The thing I find great about Wikipedia is knowing it's updated practically in "real time". If there's a new discovery or a new product or anything like that, you can bet there are people interested enough in it to come along and add the information about it to Wikipedia in short order.

    Back in the days of the traditional printed encyclopedia volumes, you had to replace the whole massive set of them every so many years, or they'd be too outdated to do anything except provide historical information. And even I

  • It's worth remembering that in Russia pravda means both "the truth" and "the official word (on the matter)". Rather like "Maat" in Pharaonic Egypt.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close