'How Wikipedia's Volunteers Became the Web's Best Weapon Against Misinformation' (fastcompany.com) 188
Fast Company just published a 4,000 appreciation of Wikipedia's volunteer editors:
[W]hile places like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter struggle to fend off a barrage of false content, with their scattershot mix of policies, fact-checkers, and algorithms, one of the web's most robust weapons against misinformation is an archaic-looking website written by anyone with an internet connection, and moderated by a largely anonymous crew of volunteers. "I think there's a part of that that is encouraging, that says that a radically open, collaborative worldwide project can build one of the most trusted sites on the internet," says Ryan Merkley, the chief of staff at the Wikimedia Foundation, the 400-person nonprofit that provides support to Wikipedia's community of editors.
"There's another piece of that that is quite sad," he adds, "because it's clear that part of being one of the most trusted sites on the internet is because everything else has collapsed around us...."
[U]nlike parts of the web where toxic information tends to spread, the encyclopedia has one big advantage: Its goal is not to "scale." It's not selling anything, not incentivizing engagement, not trying to get you to spend more time on it. Thanks to donations from thousands of donors around the world, there are no advertisers or investors to please, no algorithms to gather data or stir up emotions or personalize pages; everyone sees the same thing. That philanthropic spirit drives Wikipedia's volunteers, too, who come to the website not to share memes or jokes or even discuss the news but, marvelously, to build a reliable account of reality....
Despite the trolls and propagandists, the majority of errors, especially on controversial and highly trafficked pages, go away within minutes or hours, thanks to its phalanx of devoted volunteers. (Out of Wikipedia's 138 million registered users, about 138,000 have actively edited in the past month.) The site is self-governed according to a Byzantine body of rules that aim for courtesy and a "show your work" journalistic ethics built on accurate and balanced reporting. Vigilant community-built bots can alert Wikipedians to some basic suspicious behavior, and administrators can use restrictions to temporarily lock down the most vulnerable pages, keeping them safe from fly-by editors who are not logged in.
"Most of these edits are small improvements to phrasing or content," says a 73-year-old retired physicist from Massachusetts who's done hundreds of edits himself.
He adds that "a few are masterpieces, and some are vandalism."
"There's another piece of that that is quite sad," he adds, "because it's clear that part of being one of the most trusted sites on the internet is because everything else has collapsed around us...."
[U]nlike parts of the web where toxic information tends to spread, the encyclopedia has one big advantage: Its goal is not to "scale." It's not selling anything, not incentivizing engagement, not trying to get you to spend more time on it. Thanks to donations from thousands of donors around the world, there are no advertisers or investors to please, no algorithms to gather data or stir up emotions or personalize pages; everyone sees the same thing. That philanthropic spirit drives Wikipedia's volunteers, too, who come to the website not to share memes or jokes or even discuss the news but, marvelously, to build a reliable account of reality....
Despite the trolls and propagandists, the majority of errors, especially on controversial and highly trafficked pages, go away within minutes or hours, thanks to its phalanx of devoted volunteers. (Out of Wikipedia's 138 million registered users, about 138,000 have actively edited in the past month.) The site is self-governed according to a Byzantine body of rules that aim for courtesy and a "show your work" journalistic ethics built on accurate and balanced reporting. Vigilant community-built bots can alert Wikipedians to some basic suspicious behavior, and administrators can use restrictions to temporarily lock down the most vulnerable pages, keeping them safe from fly-by editors who are not logged in.
"Most of these edits are small improvements to phrasing or content," says a 73-year-old retired physicist from Massachusetts who's done hundreds of edits himself.
He adds that "a few are masterpieces, and some are vandalism."
"protecting against misinformation" - Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
I have Wikipedia editing abilities, which I use sparingly to correct very minor things on pretty unimportant topics.
Even so, off and on I have had run-ins with high level wikipedia moderators on the smallest of points, where something is very clearly a valid piece of information, backed by sources no less, and still moderators undo it because of the power-trip they are on against some topic or person.
In short, desperate the Pravda-like proclamation to the contrary from this article, never ever believe anything you read on Wikipedia about a subject or person that is even a tiny bit contentious. Or probably even the boring stuff... I would not trust Wikipedia editors to tell me how long to cook rice.
Re:"protecting against misinformation" - Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"protecting against misinformation" - Laughable (Score:5, Informative)
Did you see what they did on Stefan Molyneux's page? They labeled him a Nazi [wikipedia.org], turned the whole page red, and locked it. I thought that I was looking at Uncyclopedia [uncyclopedia.ca]
Except the word nazi isn't even mentioned in the page! What it says is:
"a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.
Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as a far-right activist. Tom Clements in The Independent described Molyneux as having "a perverse fixation on race and IQ".
The sources for the above is:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/t... [nbcnews.com]
https://www.splcenter.org/figh... [splcenter.org]
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/y... [cjr.org]
https://datasociety.net/output... [datasociety.net]
https://www.theguardian.com/ne... [theguardian.com]
https://link.springer.com/chap... [springer.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.politico.com/magaz... [politico.com]
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/1... [cnn.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
You might feel differently about him and if you can find a notable source, it may add to the description but I don't see how a drastic change would be an accurate description considering what's already been written about him.
A more thorough representations of his views including Molyneux views on himself and some dissenting views can be found in the article under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:"protecting against misinformation" - Laughable (Score:5, Informative)
I've never heard of Stefan Molyneux, so I have no idea how accurate the information is, but what strikes me is that all the cited articles are from left wing publications. The Guardian, The Independent, the Washington Post, CNN, etc, etc. Essentially then, Wikipedia is giving you one side of the argument. That's not neutral or accurate, that's purely biased propaganda.
I followed the Wikipedia fiasco about GamerGate, and it was exactly the same there - pure propaganda citing only left-wing sources. GamerGate was about a game designer offering sexual favours to members of the games media in exchange for favourable coverage. Gamers objected to this because they were being intentionally mislead about the quality of a game by corrupt games journalists. However, Wikipedia uses purely one-sided sources to present GamerGate as being about evil male gamers harassing and threatening poor female developers. The article goes straight into the bullshit in the first paragraph:
The controversy centered on issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy as well as for the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it.
It cites all sorts of articles from the left wing media backing up its claims, while never presenting the opposing side. Even about the FBI investigation, which found no evidence of harassment, it makes the excuse that it was "plagued with jurisdictional issues," and rather than admitting there was no harassment campaign, Wikipedia spins it by saying the FBI investigation "ultimately closed with the FBI failing to identify the perpetrators." Right, so it was all the FBI's failure that they couldn't find anyone guilty...
This is how Wikipedia operates. The project has been hijacked by the far-left so only left wing sources are permitted. For this article to claim Wikipedia is fighting misinformation is absurd. Wikipedia is misinformation.
Re:"protecting against misinformation" - Laughable (Score:4, Informative)
I've never heard of Stefan Molyneux, so I have no idea how accurate the information is, but what strikes me is that all the cited articles are from left wing publications. The Guardian, The Independent, the Washington Post, CNN, etc, etc. Essentially then, Wikipedia is giving you one side of the argument. That's not neutral or accurate, that's purely biased propaganda.
I followed the Wikipedia fiasco about GamerGate, and it was exactly the same there - pure propaganda citing only left-wing sources. GamerGate was about a game designer offering sexual favours to members of the games media in exchange for favourable coverage. Gamers objected to this because they were being intentionally mislead about the quality of a game by corrupt games journalists. However, Wikipedia uses purely one-sided sources to present GamerGate as being about evil male gamers harassing and threatening poor female developers. The article goes straight into the bullshit in the first paragraph:
The controversy centered on issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy as well as for the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it.
It cites all sorts of articles from the left wing media backing up its claims, while never presenting the opposing side. Even about the FBI investigation, which found no evidence of harassment, it makes the excuse that it was "plagued with jurisdictional issues," and rather than admitting there was no harassment campaign, Wikipedia spins it by saying the FBI investigation "ultimately closed with the FBI failing to identify the perpetrators." Right, so it was all the FBI's failure that they couldn't find anyone guilty...
This is how Wikipedia operates. The project has been hijacked by the far-left so only left wing sources are permitted. For this article to claim Wikipedia is fighting misinformation is absurd. Wikipedia is misinformation.
Afaik Molyneux is only known to a wider audience because of those articles which makes the description even more apt.
Your quotes from the gamergate article is sourced by an fbi document https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergat... [fbi.gov] pages 167-169. and to quote only from page p 168 beginning second to last paragraph:
To date, all available investigative steps failed to identify any subjects or actionable leads. San Francisco USAO indicated the San Francisco office of USA will not be able to prosecute any threats against victims or subject that are not located in the San Francisco AOR.
It is requested that this investigation be administratively closed due to lack of leads.
So the wikipedia article checks out while you are completely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it does not. All investigations end with the conclusion that no leads were found. That is legalese. If it was possible to report as a crime the false reporting itself, THEN the investigation will say if it was found true (resulting in chargesheet) or no leads were found. This exact willful dumbness and in wiki-speak, badfaith, works on wiki when you have moderators on your political side to immediately ban any opposing views.
I am not sure what you are arguing about. This problem was quite publicly kn
Re: "protecting against misinformation" - Laughabl (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe in your world Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh are credible news sources.
Re: (Score:2)
all the cited articles are from left wing publications. The Guardian, The Independent, the Washington Post, CNN, etc, etc.
The trouble with this kind of pseudo-analysis is that if you approach things this way, no one can ever prove anything. Some issues really are just one-sided: some guy was a jerk, said some jerky things, and that's it. Not everything has "two sides." If there's citations from 5 American mainstream newspapers claiming something, and no sources claiming the contrary, then it is probably true.
There has to be a name for the logical fallacy where someone thinks:
1. There's no facts to the contrary.
2. Therefore t
Re: "protecting against misinformation" - Laughabl (Score:4, Informative)
One of the reasons why the sources are mostly left leaning (although CNN, really? It's centre-right at best) is because the ones on the right tend to ignore stories that could make "their" camp look bad. Fox News is notorious for it but they all do it, e.g. coverage of Priti Patel's bullying in the UK has been minimized in papers like the Telegraph and Daily Mail.
If you look at articles about people like Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden there are a lot of right leaning sources because they tend to cover them in great detail for partisan reasons. That's just how it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you attempting to claim that left leaning sources, like CNN, don't do the same? How many have given any time to all the Obama error scandals?
Re: (Score:2)
No, left leaning sources do the same. My gut feeling is that it's not as bad, in fact if anything the left can be too harsh on its own, but I don't have any actual data to back that up.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking issue with a source solely due to the fact that it has bias does not automatically make the source wrong.
Now do Fox News and Breitbart.
Re: (Score:3)
The ironic part is that AmiMoJo is actively practicing the same anti-factual "anything I don't like is fake news" approach as Trump. So when he states "reputable right wing publications", it is a set of publications that limited to what he agrees with. Therefore, any evidence to the contrary is, by definition, cannot be from a repu
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
To be clear I don't fully support Wikipedia, I fully support looking at the facts and evaluating all information on its merits. In this case the Wikipedia article is accurate and no-one has presented any evidence to suggest otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
>You could easily refute this by pointing out a reputable source that agrees with your version of events. Just one is enough. Surely there is some centrist or right leaning but reputable publication that covered it.
And of course every single source that does that will get dismissed as not being reputable by the very virtue of the fact that they dissent from the established narrative.
Your version of events is that for no reason at all a handful of white male misogynists with thousands of fake accounts just up and decided to start terrorizing people one day just because they hate that women play videogames and want them to stop, and the way they went about this was by... raising over a hundred thousand dollars to fund f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The trick is to frontload the beginning of article subjects they don't like with negative/inflammatory information. When people call you on it you run to the fact that you went on a fishing expedition for negative quotes from hostile 'mainstream' media sources and since they're selfappinted 'mainstream' these quotes are automatically sacrosanct regardless of whether they're from opinion sources or represent the actual zeitgeist of media or popular opinion. I'm sure you guys wouldn't mind an article of obama being loaded with Foxnews and breitbart quotes.
But isn't the description Molyneux exactly what his notoriety is based on, what "claim to fame" has he beyond what's listed?
With Obama, what do you feel is lacking in the description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] is it the claims of him being born outside of the US or being muslim? To me the description seems fairly accurate concerning his notoriety.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because he wasn't more divisive than your average American president. I mean shit, his only meaningful legislation he passed was Obama Care, a plan first floated by conservatives in the 90's. Once he lost the Senate McConnell made sure he didn't pass a thing, Obama couldn't even make his own supreme court nomination.
Now there was certainly a conservative narrative of how horribly repressive Obama was but that narrative does not match the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
The lede, which I presume is what you are referring to by "frontload", has to be a summary of information in the main body of the article. In cases where it is particularly controversial, like the Molyneux article, it can include references but usually that is not required.
I don't want to defend Wikipedia too much because there is a lot of BS on there, but do you have any issues with the actual sources or summaries of them in that article? Specific issues I mean, not just vague "they don't like Molyneux" on
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is to frontload the beginning of article subjects they don't like with negative/inflammatory information.
And what if the information is completely true, and that's what he's notable for?
I'm sure you guys wouldn't mind an article of obama being loaded with Foxnews and breitbart quotes.
If the information is true and that's what Obama is notable for, then fine. But last I checked, he wasn't an alt-right white supremacist.
Re: (Score:2)
[...], turned the whole page red, [...]
I think you're referring to the YouTube personality info box template [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The word "Nazi" does not appear at all on that page. The page is semi-protected, meaning users not logged in or with brand new accounts cannot edit it but others can. "Brand new" is defined as less than 4 days old and less than 10 edits on other articles.
The article is in fact very careful to limit itself to what it has high quality sources for. So you have any specific criticisms of its content beyond the false claim that it describes Molyneux as a "Nazi"?
Re: (Score:3)
I would not trust Wikipedia editors to tell me how long to cook rice.
What about cooking potatoes?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said they were.
Re: "protecting against misinformation" - Laughabl (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have Wikipedia editing abilities, which I use sparingly to correct very minor things on pretty unimportant topics.
Even so, off and on I have had run-ins with high level wikipedia moderators on the smallest of points, where something is very clearly a valid piece of information, backed by sources no less, and still moderators undo it because of the power-trip they are on against some topic or person.
In short, desperate the Pravda-like proclamation to the contrary from this article, never ever believe anything you read on Wikipedia about a subject or person that is even a tiny bit contentious. Or probably even the boring stuff... I would not trust Wikipedia editors to tell me how long to cook rice.
Is "backed up by sources, no less" not the minimal requisite? Not the essential crux of Wikipedia's procedure to quantitatively or qualitatively support claims? Not the model of academic record and scholastic tradition?
I don't read Wikipedia for its conclusions; I read it for its citations.
Downthread, the issue of "authoritative" sources, a qualification skewed toward the enterprise of publishing houses can be problematic, especially given what proportion of academic publications were pay-walled at the tu
Re: (Score:2)
They have a very peculiar rule about sources. No primary sources accepted - see rules about "original research". Only secondary sources like press releases. And in case of press releases you have the journalists fabricating news out of whole cloth. Journalist A claims fact X basing on a source that is either totally unreliable or doesn't even exist. Then journalist B at a different news organization publishes an article sourced off journalist A. Journalist C at yet another organization picks the story from
Re:"protecting against misinformation" - Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
Chinese guy here. While the entry for "rice" does not have detailed cooking times (which varies by variety), its description of preparation is remarkably accurate, right down to the little-known fact that the rice to water ratio is dependent on the amount of evaporation your cooking vessel allows.
Re: (Score:3)
I would not trust Wikipedia editors to tell me how long to cook rice.
You cook it until there's no more water, you weirdo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As much water as you need to add to make the rice cooked when it's gone. Geez, people, is that so hard?
Re: (Score:3)
I have Wikipedia editing abilities, which I use sparingly to correct very minor things on pretty unimportant topics.
Even so, off and on I have had run-ins with high level wikipedia moderators on the smallest of points, where something is very clearly a valid piece of information, backed by sources no less, and still moderators undo it because of the power-trip they are on against some topic or person.
In short, desperate the Pravda-like proclamation to the contrary from this article, never ever believe anything you read on Wikipedia about a subject or person that is even a tiny bit contentious. Or probably even the boring stuff... I would not trust Wikipedia editors to tell me how long to cook rice.
Arguing against wikipedia who has a well known principles against doing original research and sourcing their claims, without providing a source is really tying your hands behind your back.
Re: "protecting against misinformation" - Laughabl (Score:3)
I have been on the losing side of moderation. Articles heavily biased and full of conjecture. Trying to roll it back to factual statements was a complete failure.
Here is my stance on Wikipedia.
Fuck that place.
Re: "protecting against misinformation" - Laughabl (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been on the losing side of moderation. Articles heavily biased and full of conjecture. Trying to roll it back to factual statements was a complete failure.
Here is my stance on Wikipedia.
Fuck that place.
Funny, I have a similar stance on people who don't cite sources.
Re: "protecting against misinformation" - Laughab (Score:2)
Funny - a frequently mentioned criticism of Wikipedia moderators is their vindictive abuse of the power. The previous poster doesn't want to link a specific dispute on Wikipedia because doing so would reveal his wp username. I suppose he's concerned some tolerant, open minded, inclusive Wikipedia authoritarian will see his info and retaliate. Will it be the ban hammer? Or maybe a good doxxing! Funny these things...
Re: (Score:2)
Funny - a frequently mentioned criticism of Wikipedia moderators is their vindictive abuse of the power. The previous poster doesn't want to link a specific dispute on Wikipedia because doing so would reveal his wp username. I suppose he's concerned some tolerant, open minded, inclusive Wikipedia authoritarian will see his info and retaliate. Will it be the ban hammer? Or maybe a good doxxing! Funny these things...
How nice of you to white knight for a 5 digit user. If you believe wikipedia moderators abuse their powers vindictively, banning and doxxing people, feel free to link to any such case, it really helps with credibility.
Re: "protecting against misinformation" - Laughab (Score:2)
The accusations are widespread. Your authoritarian tone and dismissive attitude only reinforce the reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
The accusations are widespread.
On this I agree, which is why those who purports the claim ought to have such an easy task substantiating it. Still you come back with nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
How nice of you to white knight for a 5 digit user.
I'm scratching my head on that one. It seems like you could have said "for an asparagus eater", for all the difference it makes to your argument.
Re: (Score:3)
This was pretty similar to my experience trying to add up to date participation numbers to Australian sport.
There is a big survey done in Australia, the Ausplay survey:
https://www.clearinghouseforsp... [clearingho...ort.gov.au]...
They have extensive tables on adult participation.
Two editors would not let this data into the sport in Australia article. The reason was fairly obvious, it shows that soccer/football is the most played team sport in Australia and one editor with a mass of edits to his name didn't like that because he doesn
Re:"protecting against misinformation" - Laughable (Score:4, Interesting)
This was pretty similar to my experience trying to add up to date participation numbers to Australian sport.
There is a big survey done in Australia, the Ausplay survey:
https://www.clearinghouseforsp... [clearingho...ort.gov.au]...
They have extensive tables on adult participation.
Two editors would not let this data into the sport in Australia article. The reason was fairly obvious, it shows that soccer/football is the most played team sport in Australia and one editor with a mass of edits to his name didn't like that because he doesn't like soccer. Roy Morgan, a statistical agency also had similar figures.
There was much time spent in the talk pages spent asking these two what would be acceptable for quoting these sporting statistics. The answer was nothing.
If you can't get fairly unobjectionable material like that into wikipedia what else is being blocked?
Your link broken, but the talk page has ample info. The dislike of soccer seems like conjecture. The problem is given the constraints of the data, how informative is it and should it be presented in a table. I think they possibly errored a bit much on the side of caution, but I can see their point. Of the posters here, I'd say you're so far the closest to having a legitimate gripe.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia's community is awful. It's a perfect example of a community that has become utterly defensive about it's flaws. I was a pretty prolific editor, too, before I decided to leave.
My particular beef with Wikipedia is it's massive biases (particularly in respect to geography and gender). The average wikipedian is a middle-aged anglophone male from an upper middle class background and living in the US or Western Europe. They have very clear interests and disinterests, and anything that doesn't interest t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"protecting against misinformation" - Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
Very much this. I had a run-in with a wikipedia editor last year over a minor but important edit to an article about a Catholic saint. The editor who quashed the edit basically said, "We would prefer information about religions to be inaccurate or slanted toward our worldview. This is neither, so no edit for you." It's an obscure Catholic saint my wife happens to like - this isn't editing some modern world leader's policy page. Even this low-stakes edit was worthy of someone's derision and condescension, apparently.
Basically said? Why are you qualifying a claim as evidence of a claim? Quote it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That the reality is that most wikipedia admins are like "Essjay", he's just one of the few who got caught (and they enacted new rules to help cover for each other after he was caught, such as the "non-outing" rules that forbid catch
Re:"protecting against misinformation" - Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
The editor who quashed the edit basically said, "We would prefer information about religions to be inaccurate or slanted toward our worldview. This is neither, so no edit for you.".
If that was really what the editor basically said, providing a source à la wikipedia would really help your case.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good example of how Wikipedia players take control of entire subjects in a way that doesn't require them to grind too hard defending articles.
Basically they change the rules on those types of article. For religious articles they made it is that the views and beliefs of the religion count for a lot more than they otherwise would, being as religious texts are unreliable sources written by unreliable people usually long after the events depicted and containing many fictional elements.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't mind saying, what were those topics?
Try "adding a movie credit a B-list actor appeared in, that you can find on Amazon and the actor appears on the cover image". Refused to add it to the list of movies they had appeared in.
Gave up trying to argue after they banned me from editing and I had to grovel to have rights restored. Over adding a movie entry only...
That's just one example. Can't give out exact details because of retaliation by the higher-ups in Wikipedia - would still like to retain e
Re: (Score:3)
Try "adding a movie credit a B-list actor appeared in, that you can find on Amazon and the actor appears on the cover image". Refused to add it to the list of movies they had appeared in.
IMBd isn't a supporting reference? You can't recognize your identification of an actor in an image is a single opinion asserting a B-lister's filmography is incomplete?
Gave up trying to argue after they banned me from editing and I had to grovel to have rights restored. Over adding a movie entry only...
That's just one example. Can't give out exact details because of retaliation by the higher-ups in Wikipedia - would still like to retain edit privileges to at least try again to correct something else.
There ya' go...an instance...but the supporting evidence of a pattern protects your sovereignty to post, or somethin'
An accusation of self-reinforcing incompetence based on a self-reinforcing incompetence.
Re:"protecting against misinformation" - Laughable (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't mind saying, what were those topics?
Try "adding a movie credit a B-list actor appeared in, that you can find on Amazon and the actor appears on the cover image". Refused to add it to the list of movies they had appeared in.
Gave up trying to argue after they banned me from editing and I had to grovel to have rights restored. Over adding a movie entry only...
That's just one example. Can't give out exact details because of retaliation by the higher-ups in Wikipedia - would still like to retain edit privileges to at least try again to correct something else.
Considering the amazon sales descriptions are entered by the sellers I don't see how they could qualify as sources, identifying someone from a cover image would fall under original research so that's also a no-go. From your story it seems like they handled it correctly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, don't over-dramatize. If you're looking for information about an obscure species of bacteria or the composition of concrete, or launch mass of Soyuz, Wikipedia tends to be quite reliable. Just take all articles about people, especially living people with a grain of salt... sometimes more than a grain.
Wikipedia is newspeak (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Leftist positions? Like, say, the earth isn't flat and wasn't created in 6 days?
Re: (Score:2)
Like, say, Gamergate purpose was harassment of women and not enforcing journalist integrity.
Re: Wikipedia is newspeak (Score:2)
Cool strawmen!
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Wikipedia is well known on conservative outlets for pushing leftist positions.
"Conservatives" in the US are conservatives no more. They have been hijacked by the likes of Breitbart and FoxNews to push a quagmire agenda of plutocrats, white-supremacists, pro-oil, militarism and isolationism. And they received a huge boost since Donald Trump became president.
Conservative values... traditional family values? Protecting small businesses? God-fearing and humble? That is all pure bullshit now.
Obama was all of that, but he is hated among conservatives, because he is black.
And Donald Trump,
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...imagine being so ingrained by propaganda that you spout the bullshit and believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
:Greatest weapon" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Against misinformation".
No. Not really. Their selective acceptance of "authoritative" sources pretty much negates that.
In short, the volunteers are a weapon.
Nothing more.
Sure, a weapon is handy when YOU have it. Right?
But what about when you toss it to your opposition?
It's a giant game of Russian Roulette with people randomly adding additional ammo.
Re: (Score:2)
No one else has managed to do better though. I wonder if it's even possible or if we are just going to dismiss everything we disagree with as biased propaganda.
There is Rational Wiki on the left leaning side that shows a bit of bias and isn't very well sourced. There is Conservapedia on the right leaning side which considers the Bible to be an authoritative source.
Wikipedia has plenty of issues but since most people don't believe every single thing they read (I hope) it's a mostly decent source of basic kno
Fact vs Fiction (Score:2, Informative)
While we may wish to believe that Wikipedia is free from misinformation, it just a belief. The truth is that all recent political news and some history and religion articles are battle grounds between Right and Left. With most Wikepedia editors being mostly Left leaning have captured articles and have been doing motivated edits to slant the information in them.
One such example is recent riots in Delhi during president Trump's visit to India. [opindia.com]
Re: (Score:3)
While we may wish to believe that Wikipedia is free from misinformation, it just a belief. The truth is that all recent political news and some history and religion articles are battle grounds between Right and Left. With most Wikepedia editors being mostly Left leaning have captured articles and have been doing motivated edits to slant the information in them.
One such example is recent riots in Delhi during president Trump's visit to India. [opindia.com]
From the wikipedia page of OpIndia:
In May 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), an affiliate of the Poynter Institute, rejected OpIndia's application to be accredited as a fact-checker. While noting partial compliance on a number of categories, the IFCN expressed concerns over partisanship, a lack of clear corrections policy, and questioned OpIndia's use of speeches to counter claims. The rejection disqualified OpIndia for fact-checking contracts with web properties owned by Facebook and Google.
IFCN certified fact-checkers AltNews and Boom (among others) document the site to have propagated fake news on multiple occasions.
Full article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I picked up an example of AltNews "fact-checking" how OpIndia fact-checked AltNews.
And from what I see, AltNews first misrepresented claims appearing on social media, unverified and unverifiable at the time, authoritatively as "untrue". OpIndia, once the official data was released, checked and called out AltNews for tagging as untrue claims that happened to be true. Then AltNews defends themselves, claiming it acted upon information available at the time. They conveniently skip the part where t
Re: Fact vs Fiction (Score:2)
But muh FAWKTZ!!
Wikipedia has been wonderful for everyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of my editing has been improvements in writing quality.
Wikipedia is amazingly good (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, there are issues. Like fascist revert-artists that reject useful content to satisfy their own egos. But by and large it is an excellent source of knowledge.
And not only about uncontroversial topics. Surprisingly, it has largely withstood pressures from armies of paid propagandists like the Chinese. Articles on subjects like Taiwan are reasonably unbiased and factual. Not perfect but pretty good.
I would say that it is the most reliable single source of information about most things. Not perfect, but nothing is better. (Of course, one should look to multiple sources for important info.)
It is a refutation of the average slash dotter's cynical view of the world.
"...most reliable single source of information..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod parent up!
Those who comment on Slashdot are often people who have had negative experiences in life, and look for ways to express the negativity they feel inside.
The full sentence: "I would say that it [Wikipedia] is the most reliable single source of information about most things."
Useful but take with pinch of salt (Score:4, Informative)
Point is Wikipedia is really just an online version of "1,001 Facts. Did you know?" type books everyone used to have in their homes. For the most part it's probably OK to trust simples facts on the dates of things but where the Wiki articles start to head into opinion pieces or get contentious, back away and try to find the real facts somewhere else. I've used Wiki to help me write small articles but I'm looking up facts such as when a bridge was built, or when such and such politician died, if the facts are slightly wrong it's not going to be an earth shattering problem, I'll apologise and correct my articles.
Re:Useful but take with pinch of salt (Score:5, Insightful)
Most studies of Wikipedia's accuracy show that *on average* it's remarkably good; usually somewhere between the kind of popular info book you're describing and academically vetted sources of information.
Of course "remarkably accurate average" doesn't mean everything is perfect. There is the occasional vandalism, error, and conflict of interest. By in large the biggest problem I have with it is inconsistency in the writing. An encyclopedia like Britannica has an editor-enforced uniformity, squarely aimed at people with general knowledge. Many Wikipedia articles are only comprehensible to people who are experts in the field already.
I was going to cite the Wikipedia article on "probability distribution", but I see people have been hard at work cleaning that up. Still, it's on a much more technical level than a generalist encyclopedia would have.
Re: (Score:2)
Point is Wikipedia is really just an online version of "1,001 Facts. Did you know?"
Point is? No, that's not the framing, scope, or content of the article. "Really".
For the most part it's probably OK to trust simples facts on the dates of things but where the Wiki articles start to head into opinion pieces or get contentious, back away and try to find the real facts somewhere else.
Such as the Wikipedia article's citations?
Real facts? Versus fictional facts? That's not paradox or ironically oxymoronic...a collocation of fictional fact could only find validity with a context of presentation and Wikipedia's transparent procedure of academic record and scholastic tradition is "the point".
Really real. Objectively real. Actual evidence. Such collocation is qualifying a thing and not an "automatic" means
Re: (Score:2)
So one reads online persistent conflations of literal and figurative and beggars the question for begging the question from vantages desperate to assert sticking an adjective on the front of noun is sufficient evidence of that vantage.
OOPS my ...beggars belief for begs the question...
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with you, but at times your rebuffs of other peoples rhetoric logic and sophistry does have a tendency to make my Chomsky bones hurt!
Faint praise à la Chomsky is a damning I'll blush to receive six ways from Sunday. But, point taken. I mean, it's not like I don't know what you're talking about and don't aspire to insouciantly cage the soul of wit...it's the details...man, the damned details.
Editors for hire & lack of NPOV (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had a nasty run in with an "editor" who suddenly took a liking, and editing, to a page on a topic of interest to me in a niche area.
Looking at his editor profile page his self description ended with "...and debts needing paying, such fun!".
We got into an argument about his changes, with me pointing out he had never shown interest in the topic until then. Why, suddenly, was he an "expert"?
His first edits were pathetic, ill informed and lacking any knowledge.
The subsequent re-writes of his edits were like it was a different person with legal knowledge.
At the same time, in parallel, I posted about this on a forum on a speciality website and he signed up (a paid forum, not a free one) to vigorously defended himself.
We could all smell the corporate money behind it because the topic was over a copyright claim which was highly contentious.
There's a comment above this one by @memory_register about a page on a catholic saint.
This is a serious failing of wikipedia. When it comes to personal beliefs editors must follow the NPOV (neutral point of view) rule.
This is largely ignored as far too many enjoy editing because their agenda is to push their own point of view on the world.
Nice to see I'm not alone in this view of wikipedia with the other comments so far.
Having said that it is a fabulous resource and I've used it since it first appeared and will continue to do so.
"the Web's Best Weapon Against Misinformation" - no. It has not figured out how to filter crap and only publish the truth.
Use your own discretion at what you read there just like you would anywhere else.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've had a nasty run in with an "editor" who suddenly took a liking, and editing, to a page on a topic of interest to me in a niche area.
Looking at his editor profile page his self description ended with "...and debts needing paying, such fun!".
We got into an argument about his changes, with me pointing out he had never shown interest in the topic until then. Why, suddenly, was he an "expert"?
His first edits were pathetic, ill informed and lacking any knowledge.
The subsequent re-writes of his edits were like it was a different person with legal knowledge.
At the same time, in parallel, I posted about this on a forum on a speciality website and he signed up (a paid forum, not a free one) to vigorously defended himself.
We could all smell the corporate money behind it because the topic was over a copyright claim which was highly contentious.
There's a comment above this one by @memory_register about a page on a catholic saint.
This is a serious failing of wikipedia. When it comes to personal beliefs editors must follow the NPOV (neutral point of view) rule.
This is largely ignored as far too many enjoy editing because their agenda is to push their own point of view on the world.
Nice to see I'm not alone in this view of wikipedia with the other comments so far.
Having said that it is a fabulous resource and I've used it since it first appeared and will continue to do so.
"the Web's Best Weapon Against Misinformation" - no. It has not figured out how to filter crap and only publish the truth.
Use your own discretion at what you read there just like you would anywhere else.
Providing a source à la wikipedia would really help your case.
Re: (Score:3)
Providing a source à la wikipedia would really help your case.
Here you go:
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
That's how WP works, isn't it? If you can link to it, it magically becomes a "source".
No it doesn't, they have standards for what they accept as a source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and obviously the source must state what you claim it does. Is this really news to you?
Re: (Score:2)
WP's supposed standards for what they accept as a source are a bad joke. An article on the international IDI V8 cited my hobby web site. Guess what? On that page I cited that article! I got the information from WP, and then WP cited me as a corroborating source! And yes, before they did so, I put the citation at the foot of the page! Circular citations, hooray!
Fact is, WP cites unreliable sources constantly.
Re: (Score:3)
You think they would have a strong meta moderation system to exclude power trip jerks.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? The Slashdot meta moderation system doesn't work very well.
I think the main problem is that there is very little reward for doing it. No visible effects or feedback. And Slashdot has a shadow ban system for mod points that I suspect affects meta moderation as well.
Re: Editors for hire & lack of NPOV (Score:2)
A big problem here is that Slashdot never added moderation support to the mobile UI. That excludes a large segment of regular users.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear that an update is in the pipeline so I'm hoping it improves later this year.
Wikipedia is a joke (Score:2)
It is a useful joke and the idea isn't a joke but in it's current form it is a joke indeed. No edit I've ever contributed in the early years remained long enough to be worth my time adding, regardless of citations I provided. I pretty much fact check every thing and look directly at the sources, plus try to find other information now. It's still a useful starting point so long as the topic is one their politics hasn't ruined. i'm surprised individuals they have defamed haven't sued them into oblivion yet.
Wikipedia is the systemd of encyclopedias (Score:4, Insightful)
My main complaint about Wikipedia is the notability policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be not paper, and I would love a free encyclopedia where every niche topic is covered in obsessive detail but the deletionists on Wikipedia get high from deleting information.
This article ... is written like a curse (Score:5, Interesting)
One example is crop circles. This is covered in both Wikipedia and the online Encyclopedia Britannica.
Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/art... [britannica.com]
"Crop circles are said by some who have studied them to be messages from intelligent extraterrestrial life, but many have been proved to be the work of humans."
Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Although obscure natural causes or alien origins of crop circles are suggested by fringe theorists,[4] there is no scientific evidence for such explanations, and all crop circles are consistent with human causation.[5][6][7]"
The former sounds like a neutral view on the subject which the latter is just a slap in the face directed especially at a group of people labelled "fringe theorists".
That is an opinion piece, not an encyclopedia.
Re:This article ... is written like a curse (Score:5, Informative)
"Fringe theorist" is an academic term. There is a Wikipedia article on it that accurately and neutrally describes fringe theories as those which fall outside mainstream academia.
Your objection to the term is your personal bias against it, but it is entirely accurate. Aliens visiting Earth in general is a fringe theory as no mainstream academic support for it or scientific evidence of it exists.
Re: This article ... is written like a curse (Score:2)
"Fringe theorist" is obviously a slur. Tho you are no doubt correct that it's a slur favored by certain self-regarding academics.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you feel offended. What politically correct term would you prefer for someone who pursues theories outside academia and for which there is credible scientific basis?
Re: This article ... is written like a curse (Score:2)
I believe "dissident" is the common term for voices speaking against the totalitarian official narrative.
Protecting against misinformation - riiiiight (Score:2, Insightful)
"the majority of errors, especially on controversial and highly trafficked pages, go away within minutes or hours"
Sure they do. As long as you define "error" as "a political point that the Wikipedia crowd disagrees with". The politics are very progressive, so any non-progressive facts are unacceptable. Pick your favorite hot-button topic: gender, IQ, whatever - Wikipedia does a great job of presenting the progressive viewpoint, but non-progressive viewpoints and facts are completely unwelcome.
The other prob
This makes the cons angry (Score:2)
Judging from all the complaints under this post, Wikipedia is doing something right. Far-righters just can't stand it when media makes the choice to say one source is legitimate and another is not.
The white nationalists and others must push the false narrative that we give equal weight to their bogus sources like Breitbart or QAnon. When you expose this for what it is, a falsehood, it makes them cry. They can't stand that because if they don't feel tough they've got nothing.
Here's something to think abou
Re: This makes the cons angry (Score:2)
Hurray for stifling voices of dissent! Three cheers for pompously smug authoritarianism! Oligarchy forever!!
Re: (Score:2)
Here's something to think about: Bias is not illegal in journalism. Real journalists accept that bias exists and they are biased. Those claiming otherwise are the ones to keep an eye on.
Well then, wouldn't the "ones to keep an eye on" be the CNNs of the world that claim they have no bias?
A picture's worth a thousand edits. (Score:2)
Lots of posts about the writing aspect. Now what about the art, and illustrations? Anyone moderating, or contributing there?
Wikipedia is weaponized, but only for right-think (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The result was delete.
Regardless of your stance on the underlying topic, given the controversial nature, the list of scientists who have taken a public stance (as reported by reliable, neutral third party sources) certainly seems notable!
Here was my favorite argument in favor of keep:
Re:Misinformation (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's my favorite deletion from the last 24 hours:
List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming [wikipedia.org]
The result was delete.
Regardless of your stance on the underlying topic, given the controversial nature, the list of scientists who have taken a public stance (as reported by reliable, neutral third party sources) certainly seems notable!
Here was my favorite argument in favor of keep:
Not going to read the full article, but I found the first paragraph is particularly enlightening and I wholeheartedly agree:
The result was delete. I also intend to creation protect the article. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming. This cross-categorization is described by many persuasive commenters below as non-encyclopedic per WP:LISTN. No prejudice to the creation of a list of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
So no list of scientists who disagrees with global warming, a list of climate scientists who disagrees with global warming is fine.
Re: Misinformation (Score:2)
Sure looks like bias...
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the comments there are some good arguments made in favour of deleting it. For a start it's just flamebait, there have already been long edit wars over who qualifies as a scientist and who disagrees with the consensus and what the consensus exactly is.
But the most powerful argument is that it doesn't serve any useful purpose. And by useful I don't mean "a handy list of people to blackball with no proper checking and the usual Wikipedia quality standards." Climate change denial is one example of peopl