Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Wikipedia

'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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'How Wikipedia's Volunteers Became the Web's Best Weapon Against Misinformation'

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Sunday March 08, 2020 @11:02PM (#59809710)

    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.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Sunday March 08, 2020 @11:04PM (#59809714) Journal
      Welcome to that special "philanthropic spirit".
    • by Sebby ( 238625 )

      I would not trust Wikipedia editors to tell me how long to cook rice.

      What about cooking potatoes?

    • 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

      • 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

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday March 09, 2020 @12:19AM (#59809840) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite ( 721679 ) on Monday March 09, 2020 @04:53AM (#59810152)

        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.

        • 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...

          • 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.

    • by sien ( 35268 )

      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

      • by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite ( 721679 ) on Monday March 09, 2020 @05:25AM (#59810210)

        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.

    • 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

    • by gorim ( 700913 )
      Yes like this article on foxnews. Read the 3rd paragraph, it is so obviously slanted from slanted sources towards a far left bias but the wikipedia editors fight like tigers to preserve it. They refuse to recognize their own bias in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] I say this as someone who doesn't even watch or read fox news and could normally care less about them but its obvious even to me.I learned that wikipedia is nothing but a ideological cesspit that day.
  • Wikipedia is well known on conservative outlets for pushing leftist positions. If you think this is the only proper reflection of information, I'm guessing this article would be correct. One could argue a wiki should try to represent most positions on topics in a non-biased manner.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 )

      Leftist positions? Like, say, the earth isn't flat and wasn't created in 6 days?

    • 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,

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        Wow...imagine being so ingrained by propaganda that you spout the bullshit and believe it.

        • No, he's right. I've stood on both sides of the center. I've watched and listened to years of conservative news, commentary, and theory. Over time I've witnessed the shift away from ideals to a servile, dependent... almost desperate - attitude towards a single person. Conservatives have lost their way.
  • :Greatest weapon" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Sunday March 08, 2020 @11:19PM (#59809746) Homepage Journal

    "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.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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)

    by gopla ( 597381 )

    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]

    • 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]

      • 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

  • by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Sunday March 08, 2020 @11:29PM (#59809764) Homepage
    Wikipedia has been wonderful. It's not perfect. It's a great first stop when you want to understand some new subject.

    Most of my editing has been improvements in writing quality.
    • by aberglas ( 991072 ) on Monday March 09, 2020 @12:30AM (#59809856)

      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.

  • by AxisOfPleasure ( 5902864 ) on Sunday March 08, 2020 @11:37PM (#59809774)

    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.

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday March 09, 2020 @12:33AM (#59809862) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • 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

      • 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...

  • by seoras ( 147590 ) on Monday March 09, 2020 @02:01AM (#59809982)

    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.

    • by labnet ( 457441 )

      You think they would have a strong meta moderation system to exclude power trip jerks.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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.

  • 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.

  • by xack ( 5304745 ) on Monday March 09, 2020 @03:50AM (#59810074)
    Everyone claims to hate it, but a mainstream alternative has not emerged. Projects like Citizendium have failed, wikis about fictional topics have mostly been bought up by Fandom/Wikia and are covered in tracking and ads. Everipedia is tied to a cryptocurrency scheme and Infogalactic has point of view issues.

    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.
  • by Air-conditioned cowh ( 552882 ) on Monday March 09, 2020 @05:27AM (#59810216)
    The problem with the Wikipedia community, or rather a POV group that just happens to share the same bias as the founder, is that any article about a fringe topic just has to put the boot in in the lead and basically say, "Wikipedia thinks that this is topic is crap perpetrated by morons".

    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.
  • "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

  • 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

    • Hurray for stifling voices of dissent! Three cheers for pompously smug authoritarianism! Oligarchy forever!!

    • by Shotgun ( 30919 )

      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?

  • Lots of posts about the writing aspect. Now what about the art, and illustrations? Anyone moderating, or contributing there?

  • A prime example of the weaponization of Wikipedia was the attempt to delete a national bestselling author who happens to be conservative. Suddenly multiple awards and number of books were meaningless. Everything that makes an author notable was deemed not enough in this case. The reality is that a group of left wing nuts who may even be further from the political center than the author himself tried to erase him because of his bad-think. Don't believe me, check out the talk page of Michael Z Williamson

According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.

Working...