Wikipedia Plans New Rule To Combat 'Toxic Behavior' (bbc.com) 266
Wikipedia is taking steps to fight what it's calling "toxic behavior" which will be finalized by the end of this year, reports the BBC (in an article shared by Charlotte Web):
"We must work together to create a safe, inclusive culture, where everyone feels welcome, that their contributions are valued, and that their perspective matters," said Katherine Maher, the chief executive officer of the Wikimedia Foundation [which runs Wikipedia]... The foundation's binding code of conduct for members will include banning or limiting access if volunteers violate the terms. There will be a review process for the decisions if volunteers feel more context is needed.
Wikipedia has become one of the internet's most trusted sources for information, but complaints about gender imbalances and harassment have plagued the platform for close to a decade. A study from the University of Washington on the gender gap in Wikipedia editors found many female and LGBTQ editors feared for their safety. Several female editors told the researchers their work had been contested by male editors or that they received negative feedback from a male editor. A New York Times article from 2019 also highlighted the concerns some transgender editors have about volunteering for the site. One editor told the paper they received death threats...
[E]ditors can interact with one another and can change the content on a page after it has been written. This has led to a form of harassment where, after one volunteer adds to a page, another volunteer will remove or change that work moments later, forcing the first editor to redo their work and leading to editing battles.
Wikipedia has become one of the internet's most trusted sources for information, but complaints about gender imbalances and harassment have plagued the platform for close to a decade. A study from the University of Washington on the gender gap in Wikipedia editors found many female and LGBTQ editors feared for their safety. Several female editors told the researchers their work had been contested by male editors or that they received negative feedback from a male editor. A New York Times article from 2019 also highlighted the concerns some transgender editors have about volunteering for the site. One editor told the paper they received death threats...
[E]ditors can interact with one another and can change the content on a page after it has been written. This has led to a form of harassment where, after one volunteer adds to a page, another volunteer will remove or change that work moments later, forcing the first editor to redo their work and leading to editing battles.
Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia has gotten so bad, I usually skip any link that refers to it.
Instead of a collection of truths and facts, it has become a temple where you dare not present anything that goes against what the elite acolytes that control it believes.
It is really past time for someone to start up a Wikipedia competitor with way more rigor around the whole editing process and transparency around who is doing the editing.
Re: Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing honest will ever be allowed to exist. It's the times we live in. See how politicking kills people right now and both sides don't care....
It's incredibly depressing!
Re: (Score:2)
Until recently this wasn't even politics.
Only until the left absorbed the crazy SJWs would you consider it politics. I'm sure it was bound to happen because they are cheap votes you can get with a few ree's.
Re: Will the SJWs be reined in? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The truth is out there, it's just that most people don't want it.
Re: Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is out there, it's just that most people don't want it.
Sure, you are one of them (not necessary on this topic) but I've seen facts get bounced off your head more times than I can count. Sometimes your right, sometimes not. But I've never seen facts change your (sometimes wrong) arguments in any way shape or form. So if you want to fight this, perhaps start with yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
I've changed my position on a lot of things over the years due to facts and better understanding. I wasn't always a feminist, most regrettably I wasn't very sympathetic to people with weight problems once, I used to be a proponent of nuclear power... There are many more, those are just a few that come to mind.
Let's see if these facts bounce off your head or if you are willing to admit you just don't know me well enough to make this determination.
What have you changed your mind about?
Re:Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:5, Informative)
That hasn't been my experience. Of course, I don't use it for looking up controversial stuff very much.
When I was a kid my parents bought me a World Book Encyclopedia, and I devoured it. Now I have the wikipedia, and I'm extremely grateful for it's existence.
What is Wikipedia good and bad for? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yours [shoor's] is the first comment of actual substance on this important story. I tossed the FP tripe Subject in favor of your substantive issue.
If I am interpreting your position correctly, the kernel is NPOV. An admirable, even a lofty, objective, but kind of hard to apply in the real world. Everyone has a point of view and I am extremely skeptical of anyone who claims to have the perfect one. As it applies to Wikipedia there is constant negotiation for the closest approximation to neutrality, and that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nothing sums it up (Score:2)
If you have something useful to say, you can put in some effort to say at it in a simple a way that people can understand.
Re:Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:4, Informative)
It is really past time for someone to start up a Wikipedia competitor with way more rigor around the whole editing process and transparency around who is doing the editing.
It's been attempted... Schafly's Christian-oriented Conservapedia takes a clean sheet approach, Vox Day's Infogalactic is an edited mirror. Alternatively, you can just use a traditionally edited encyclopedia, like Britannica.
Personally, I think that Wikipedia should become a platform for anyone to create lists of curated versions of articles. If you're looking at an article on evolution, you could choose to view and cite specific revisions of that article approved by an authority you trust, be that a scientist or a theologian.
Re:Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think that Wikipedia should become a platform for anyone to create lists of curated versions of articles. If you're looking at an article on evolution, you could choose to view and cite specific revisions of that article approved by an authority you trust, be that a scientist or a theologian.
Yes, let's encourage people to only get their own opinions fed back to them, regardless of reality. Make Wikipedia exactly like cable news, sounds like a GREAT idea.
Re: (Score:2)
And people can't do that now? People who want to wrap themselves up in an epistemic bubble simple ignore information they disagree with.
The abuse of a thing doesn't invalidate it's usefulness. You can beat someone to death with a pipe wrench; that doesn't mean it's not useful on pipes.
Re: (Score:2)
"People who want to wrap themselves up in an epistemic bubble simple ignore information they disagree with."
They're at least being exposed to the information (with citations) on Wikipedia. On Echo-Chamber-Pedia, that wouldn't happen. We would all be poorer for it.
WP has problems, but at least it attempts to address them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the problem is that it's a moving target; if I cite a *current* article it could be fixed when you look at it, then unfixed when I look at it again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&diff=next&oldid=914645912 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The spanish flu is a great example of modern influence.
The SJWs are angry because the president of the united states said the Wuhan flu comes from China. Then of course a lot of people who disagree with him on principle said you can't call a virus by a location. However, this is historically the case and thus people began to cleanse the Spanish Flu from wikipedia. Never mind the spanish flu is called as such in medical text books and has been so for many years.
The problem with living documents and political
Re: (Score:3)
Theres naming something in an effort to give it a name, and then theres naming something in an effort to assign blame - Spanish Flu was an example of the former, while "Wuhan Flu" was an example of the latter (it was already commonly referred to as the "coronavirus", so it didn't need "naming" in the same way that Spanish Flu was named, and Trumps usage was always in a negative sense). Everything Trump has done has been an effort to raise tensions and sow discontent against China amongst Americans - and sa
Re: Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:3)
I remember trying to edit bovine VCJD page (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think that Wikipedia should become a platform for anyone to create lists of curated versions of articles. If you're looking at an article on evolution, you could choose to view and cite specific revisions of that article approved by an authority you trust, be that a scientist or a theologian.
I think that would be a really interesting idea, you could even judge articles by how much the cited articles that differed in opinion... I think it would be a lot more clear and straightforward than what
Re: (Score:3)
"Personally, I think that Wikipedia should become a platform for anyone to create lists of curated versions of articles."
There is already a site like that. It is called Everything2. It is not even a meaningful fraction as popular as Wikipedia, probably because what people want is an article, not a list of articles.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be time to swing bat to britannica.
If they had any sense they would make a pure version of wikipedia/encyclopedia free from the idealogs influence.
It is a little bit late to attempt to rename the spanish flu, but hey it if it serves a purpose...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Instead of a collection of truths and facts, it has become a temple where you dare not present anything that goes against what the elite acolytes that control it believes.
Sounds like someone has tried adding their "truths" to Wikipedia without a reliable source.
Re:Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds like someone has tried adding their "truths" to Wikipedia without a reliable source.
Wikipedia doesn't care about reliable sources, they only care about notability. If I take a paper full of sourced material, and break it down to the point that a layman can understand it. While using 1st, 2nd and 3rd party verifiable sources to back up the statements. That's not allowed. If I take a news article that's wrong six ways from sunday, from WAPO or the Guardian, that states the exact opposite? That's allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
No, peer reviewed papers are some of the highest rated sources possible on Wikipedia. What you aren't allowed to do is draw your own conclusions from it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's original research, and you can't use original research.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Many have tried, all have failed. Conservapedia is probably the biggest effort. It seems like you have to have some kind of ideological bent to go to all that effort, i.e. most people don't think Wikipedia is bad enough to bother.
Re:Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care who is doing the editing. The issue is the gatekeepers. They are who really decides what goes in an article or not. They know how to wiki lawyer and they'll harass anyone who disturbs their corner of the Wikipedia world.
There are so many issues with wikipedia but to me the biggest is that articles need to be setup like a pyramid. An encyclopedic summary that acts as portal to perspectives, interpretations, and minutia on a subject.
They also need to sort out their data structures. They're locked into "wiki" format when they need to put in an abstraction layer to allow for proper data sets to be exploited within wiki.
Secondary source nonsense needs to stop too. Journalists/bloggers/etc get it wrong so often. It needs to be primary sourced and if there's conflicting perspectives, include them all until one is proven wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I refuse to edit.
The majority of the articles are good, but some issues that are related to politics or social issues have gatekeepers insisting on non-factual statements that relate not to the actual subject of the article, but to current events or the history of specific countries regarding that issue.
Like if you're defining sexism; you don't words like "male" or "female" in the definition, that would be sexist. If sexism affects women more in certain places right now, that's a separate subjec
Re:Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondary source nonsense needs to stop too
100%. I used to contribute to WP, but stopped years ago. Chiefly because I was adding articles on VERY obscure software, systems, and tools, for which there's barely any references in trade publications, much less anything in popular press.
But no, WP editors demanded citations from places like New York Times or established blogs. Yeah, OK, the NYT is going to publish an article about the inventory-control-and-parts-interchange platform that many salvage yards run on (ADP Hollander Yard Management System). Have YOU ever heard of it? No. And you wouldn't. Unless you work in the industry.
Just one example among many, where rare information was contributed, and then kicked out simply because it wasn't substantiated "enough". Even links to the publisher's web site referencing the software weren't good enough. So why should I continue to help people when it's a complete waste of time?
If Wikipedia wants to "reduce toxicity", start by cleaning their own house first, before all the virtue-signalling bullshit.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is quite good when you are looking for a quick introduction into something from a STEM field. Ignore everything else(*) and you will be quite happy with it.
(*) Especially anything related to politics, famous people, history, culture ...
Re: Wikipedia is a lost cause (Score:2)
That's quite a generalization. It depends on what kind of article you're reading. Science and mathematics articles are largely fine, with the exception of a few scientific topics that have become politicized. Geographical articles are likewise generally fine, with some exceptions related to disputed territories (though this is expected, as those territories are in dispute).
Of course, if I still taught undergraduate courses, I would still ban students from using Wikipedia as a primary source. It's a useful s
How do they know? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is probably an easy answer, but how do other editors know a persons sex, gender, or orientation? I've never been asked that when editing anything on Wikipedia.
Re: How do they know? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not trying to be awful here, but have you ever met a vegan who didn't let you know they were vegan in some way?
I don't have a lot of context to this story, but I do have several friends who are in the LGBT community, and my god, when I was introduced to one of them, I was told they were trans before I was given the opportunity to say hi. Turned out to be a great person btw.
But I agree, I don't see any close corelation between editing something on the internet and gender, orientation or gender identity either.
Re: How do they know? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have probably met several vegans who didn't let you know they were vegans. You just don't realize they were vegans, because, you know, they didn't let you know.
Your data set is skewed: the only vegans you know you have met are the ones who are loud about it, so you think they are all loud about it. But you actually have not done a controlled test.
Incidentally, I work with a few vegans. The way I found out they were vegans was going out to lunch with them and noticing that they never ordered meat, and then asking them about it.
So, yes, they do exist, and you are buying-in to a stereotype created by the subset of vegans who are annoying about it.
Re: How do they know? (Score:2)
Fair. But I'm willing to bet there are also those who meet the criteria in this article who aren't dealing with the same issues.
I guess that is kind of my point. It couldn't be a contributing factor unless people knew. On the internet, how could people know?
I'm not suggesting that justifies any of this either.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes that's logical. It can't be gender-based of sexual-identity-based or race-based harassment if the gender, sexual identity, and race of the victim are not known. And, if the only interaction is on-line, then this information can simply be kept secret (or falsified) without consequence.
BUT
That isn't normal. It might be normal for people who are privacy-obsessed, but most people aren't like that. Most people LOVE talking all about themselves and who they are, and they can't resist the temptation to pla
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand there are plenty of people who, if asked, will claim to be vegan while wearing a wool sweater, driving a car with leather seats, owning a silk lined jacket, sleeping on feathers, etc.
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How do they know? (Score:4, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. I don't edit on Wikipedia at all, I mainly use it to get a quick overview of a topic I'm not very familiar with or to see if I can quickly find some kind of obscure detail, but ... facts are facts. If there is a credible source for something posted on a page then it doesn't matter if the editor was male, female, or some tri-gender silicon life form from Omega Tau in the Andromeda galaxy.
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Insightful)
>"facts are facts. If there is a credible source for something posted on a page then it doesn't matter if the editor was male, female, or some tri-gender silicon life form from Omega Tau in the Andromeda galaxy."
Agreed.
Except there are all kinds of facts that are omitted, intentionally. And others added, intentionally. So a page can be nothing but facts, but still add up to a mostly or basically skewed article. I have seen the edit wars behind the pages and it is pretty bad. And many of these pages weren't even something one would think were controversial. Get into any subject matter that isn't pure, dry science and it is a mess.
I still find Wikipedia very useful, and use it all the time. But I know that it tends to have an agenda, just like the media, and treat it accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
There is probably an easy answer, but how do other editors know a persons sex, gender, or orientation? I've never been asked that when editing anything on Wikipedia.
They don't - at least, most of the time. You can guess, based on an editor's nickname, but even then, what if my nickname was a name usually used by the opposite gender?
Anyone who has their edits questioned doesn't have to tell people their gender. Likewise, they don't know the gender of the people questioning their edits.
Are there more men than women editing WIkipedia? Undoubtedly. Perhaps it's just due to the fact that you need to spend a lot of your free time in front of a computer screen to become an
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, where’s the control group? I’m male, and my experience with wikis has included plenty of insults and even various forms of threats from other, male editors (in one case, someone even made a lookalike account for mine on a wiki I administrated and then posted bomb threats using what seemed to be my name). Sounds to me like the female and other editors are receiving a similarly inclusive experience.
Excellent ideas: (Score:2)
"We must work together to create a safe, inclusive culture, where everyone feels welcome, that their contributions are valued, and that their perspective matters..."
Re: Excellent ideas: (Score:2)
The word "inclusive" does not mean what the dictionary says.
Re:Excellent ideas: (Score:5, Interesting)
Excellent ideas:
"We must work together to create a safe, inclusive culture, where everyone feels welcome, that their contributions are valued, and that their perspective matters..."
Yeah, so contributions by Nazis, racists, religious fanatics, etc. are "welcome" and "their perspective matters"? No? Well, so is this mission statement nothing but a lie?
In other news, the primary skill of SJWs is dishonesty. By "inclusive" that always only mean to people that agree with them. Dissent is not tolerated. That basically is the end of any actual exchange or openness.
Re: (Score:3)
It's such a catch-22. One wants a community of editors that are focused on objectivity and truth, while also being friendly to each other and not full of irrational biases, hatred, etc.
But, nobody has perfect knowledge and nobody is free form bias, so they will disagree on what qualifies as true. That disagreement will motivate them to challenge each other's work and accuse one another of bias. The experience of having one's work challenged is always frustrating and will always make people feel like they
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, pretty much this. And you even need to tolerate some assholes as some of them do good work. The primary thing must always be the result, or result quality goes down the drain and the whole endeavor becomes pointless.
However, the other thing is that adults are supposed to have some resistance against taking everything personal. You can only learn and grow better if you can take criticism at face value and look at its factual merit. If, on being criticized, the first thing you do is check for the gender
Re: (Score:2)
Also, good criticism is clear and to the point, because it must not allow the recipient to weasel out if it. "Friendly" criticism that has to respect SJW "values" and can never say anything is wrong or inaccurate or point out flaws directly and can only ever "suggest" improvements is easily ignored by those that need it most and hence is pointless.
This is a false dichotomy and is symptomatic of black-and-white thinking. There's a lot of room in between "weasel out of it" and "never say anything is wrong". I hope you're not a parent. Or a boss.
Also -
The primary thing must always be the result, or result quality goes down the drain and the whole endeavor becomes pointless.
Again the black-and-white thinking. Sometimes the journey is as important, maybe even more important, than the destination. It depends on what you're doing, with whom, and why.
--
.nosig
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that your criticism is fundamentally dishonest, I will assume you are with _them_. As such you are the enemy.
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Several female editors told the researchers their work had been contested by male editors or that they received negative feedback from a male editor."
If you think the problem is that they know you're female, then DON'T TELL THEM.
Pick a nice neutral username without a gender or any "massage," and do the work. Don't bring up your gender, or your sexuality, or anything except the content.
If they "challenge" you after that, maybe they just think you're wrong. That happens to guys, too, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It would tend to seem that way because hardly anyone is going to post a message just to say they agree.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the problem is that they know you're female, then DON'T TELL THEM.
Caveat: I don't know how the Wikipedia editing system works. So I don't know how easy this is to do. But I've seen a subset of users on other boards (4chan, I'm looking at you) who spend an inordinate amount of time doxing users. And that's not an easy thing to do on anonymous boards. But as a result, the validity of your inputs depend on who you are. Which gender, race, nationality, membership in political organizations, etc. So it would not surprise me if the same sorts of people operate on Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't bring up your gender, or your sexuality, or anything except the content.
But then when their submission is trashed, what will they blame it on?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hahahaha, no. Then it could come out that that maybe a man criticizing anything that a woman wrote is not necessarily sexism. It may just be that the criticism was factual and justified by the thing written. And that would be the end of the "victim" status these people so extremely crave.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction (Score:3)
Several female editors told the researchers their work had been contested by male editors
... their work had been contested by editors who identified as male
Guess (Score:2)
Can you practice on Stack Exchange, first? They're lousy with prople who get angry if you don't spend 17 hours using their embarrassing, first generation search tool to guess at what something is called before giving in and asking a question.
Ha (Score:2)
We must work together to create a safe, inclusive culture, where everyone feels welcome, that their contributions are valued, and that their perspective matters,
If she really means everyone, then doesn't that include those that exhibit "toxic behavior"?
Re: (Score:2)
Those people should feel welcome too, but that doesn't mean they should feel free to continue the toxic behavior. That is, it should be clear that they should change their behavior, not that they should not come back to Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And who decided what is "toxic"? It is such a nice malleable term that you can easily use against anybody in true inquisition style. Criticize a A while being a B? Well, depending on what the current leaders deem superior that can either be completely acceptable or a deadly sin. (The merit of the criticism itself does not play a role.)
So criticizing anything a woman wrote while being a man? Banishment from the community for the man! Obviously the criticism was invalid and toxic. Criticize anything a man wro
Re: (Score:2)
"Wikipedia was a great experiment, but it it is now tainted and will be worthless in the not too distant future"
People have been saying this literally since Wikipedia became popular, and all of them have been wrong so far. Why do you think this time is different?
Re: (Score:2)
"Wikipedia was a great experiment, but it it is now tainted and will be worthless in the not too distant future"
People have been saying this literally since Wikipedia became popular, and all of them have been wrong so far. Why do you think this time is different?
Because they now caught the SJW infection. That is usually terminal for any project. Also, I am not "people" and I am saying this for the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
So criticizing anything a woman wrote while being a man? Banishment from the community for the man!
Is that something that actually happens, or something you would just like to be mad about?
Re: (Score:2)
So criticizing anything a woman wrote while being a man? Banishment from the community for the man!
Is that something that actually happens, or something you would just like to be mad about?
Your insinuation does clearly show you are asking in bad faith...
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, your comment just reads like something somebody made up. If it isn't, show your evidence. I have an open mind. Wikipedia is run by humans, and they are bound to make flawed decisions. But unless something is forthcoming I will assume from your response that you have nothing to back up your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the classic pseudo-argument: "Isn't it also intolerance to not tolerate the intolerant ?"
And I've got the answer for you: No. Just no.
Even societies based on freedom have jails where they imprison murderers and rapists. Even societies based on freedom of speech have laws against shoutng "Fire !" in a crowded theatre.
Real life is not some theoretical logical and philosophical concept. The ultimate goal of civilization is to create a society where the largest possible number of people can live and rai
Re: (Score:2)
A problem with that argument is that if you own the method of distributing (the town square) what you consider to be the "civilized" argument then any "barbarian" that opposes your opinion can find no place in your town square.
If you own the method of distribution of information, you get to decide what information gets distributed. Not being willing to acknowledge that fact is disingenuous at best.
Say what you will about the fairness of this fact.
Re:Ha (Score:5, Insightful)
We must work together to create a safe, inclusive culture, where everyone feels welcome, that their contributions are valued, and that their perspective matters,
If she really means everyone, then doesn't that include those that exhibit "toxic behavior"?
Of course not. It clearly means everybody, except those they want to exclude. Oldest trick in the book: Claim you are open to everybody, but have a nice system of penalties and some "truth panel" in place that make it easy to remove anybody that dares to have a dissenting view. Essentially, they just replaced whitelisting with blacklisting and claim it is fundamentally different, using the strategy of the "Big Lie". And, of course, anybody that gets removed is guilty of something and hence it is fine to remove anybody they want to remove. The whole thing is essentially how a fanatical cult works.
Something's missing in this story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Something's missing in this story (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if you comment on their article with something like, "this is wrong and uncited trash and here's a link that shows how dumb and wrong the original wording is" they would say/believe you have just committed an act of violence upon their person.
Now then, that is obviously stupid to any normal rational person but these are not normal rational people.
Re: Something's missing in this story (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's Lisa Feldman Barrett, a psychology professor who was given a platform by the New York Times to defend the idea of speech as violence. [nytimes.com]
We've heard claims that speech that offends is actually violence, and we've seen activists use actual violence to stop it - and to defend this as self-defense-when administrators fail to do so. [dailycal.org]
"Fuck free speech!" one group of social justice advocates recently told Vice Media [youtube.com], as if this justified the growing belief among university students that conservatives shou
Re: (Score:2)
From your own link:
"Offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain. Your nervous system evolved to withstand periodic bouts of stress, such as fleeing from a tiger, taking a punch or encountering an odious idea in a university lecture."
Doesn't match your characterisation.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, prolonged psychological abuse can have physical effects. Not really news is it?
But that's very different to what you were saying, that people are equating a few rude words with being punched. The article you linked to support your claim specifically says that's not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
The first sentence you quoted directly contradicts your conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Details on the study: https://drive.google.com/file/... [google.com]
Often the feelings of unease start when editors begin researching then, finding their accounts on other sites to use as ammunition in arguments. In some cases they get attacked more directly, like having their personal page vandalized or sanctions being used.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried that? It's.. Not a great experience.
Wikipedia is the last dream of the internet (Score:4, Interesting)
We had an open source network (world wide web), an open source os (linux, bsd and friends), then we just wanted knowledge to be free. I feel that we should have something like git but for knowledge instead. Where controversial information can be compared over different sides, instead of having a "winning side". Also obscure topics shoudn't be deleted as not notable, but incubated to get more sources so it is more notable. Wikipedia should reach out to authors of sources to get them to write better versions suitible for citing in encyclopedia format.
Wikipedia is almost 20 years old and yet we haven't solved the problems from it's early days. I want the knowlege dream to become true, as it will change humanity forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of Wikipedia articles express competing opinions. But you have to back up a position with facts. For every situation there is one set of facts. You can draw different conclusions from the available facts, but most conclusions in the world which differ from the prevailing fact-based conclusion aren't in fact supported, let alone well-supported.
You can argue about what the facts are, and therefore what the most reasonable conclusion is. When it comes to what should be done about a new problem, there are
Editor self-importance.. (Score:3)
...is the fuel that runs Wikipedia.
First off, I use the site quite often, and it's typically great - at least for the topics I'm looking at (normally science, computer science, geography - stuff with clear, unambiguous answers in some book that can be linked to).
But if you look inside the machine that generates the content, it's depressing. When abuse comes up, there's huge resistance to taking away someone's editing powers. There's actually not that many people who are doing a lot of editing, and many of those people have a lot of their self-worth tied up in it. None of them wants outside accountability for their in-group, because their power is important to them, and their comfortable with the current power structure.
So, yeah, just don't look at the editing process, just accept that you probably don't want to get involved. Having a giant, petty HOA run-off new contributors and bask in their own authority - that's just the cost of keeping the content gears churning. The structure was designed to create a self-sustaining self-righteous oligarchy of jerks; the amazing encyclopedia that you get at the site is kind of a by-product.
Well, I will not donate to them anymore (Score:3)
Did so far every year, but this bullshit is completely unacceptable. They can celebrated their new messed up view of reality without me and feel like victims all day long without getting any attention from me for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Science. (Score:3)
Wikipedia should be run in a way that's consistent with the Scientific Method.
In other words, you post something, expect criticism. Sometimes pointedly difficult criticism. You've asserted something, the burden of proof is on you to make sure you have your sources in order and that they're sufficient to withstand scrutiny.
If your sources don't withstand scrutiny, expect to be lambasted. Adding a "Safe Place" in the scientific method where nobody's allowed to question you breaks the whole thing, because then you have to allow things to stand that shouldn't. Science is tough. Men and women both find it difficult, as it takes a particular mind to take that scrutiny and feedback (occasionally destroying everything you believe, because it isn't correct, or it isn't what the evidence says).
I'll be looking more deeply into this to find out what's really going on (if I can, and have the time). If it's people complaining because they have a pet political agenda, and wikipedia is simply poandering to that, then I'll be withdrawing my support (I have a monthly payment going to them; not much, but there again, I'm not super rich these days).
The sources of information I rely on aren't supposed to be easy and opinionated to produce. They're meant to be tough, exacting and as accurate as they can be. If that gets watered down, then it's not worth my time treating them as authoritative.
So more toxicity in the name of removing toxicity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
>"Threats" is not toxicity. Saying "I feel threatened" when no credible threat has been towards you *is* toxicity."
While I agree with you, the problem is that many of these people think anything said that challenges what they say or believe *is* a "threat." That is what is so screwed up. How dare you challenge them? You are evil and must be stopped using any method at their disposal.
>"but there are toxic behaviors which are perfectly polite and there are ass holes who are not toxic per se."
Agreed a
We need a more serious encyclopedia (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some female editors felt their work was contested by male editors" In what parallel universe is this a problem !? Editor work should be checked and criticized by other editors, it is called peer review. And there is already not enough peer review on wikipedia. Nearly everyone can write nonsense in wikipedia already. That is a defect, not a feature. It is too inclusive already. Wiki, as a source is disreputable and you cannot cite it in your student work at school.
It is a convenient source of trivia and superficial knowledge. But not a substitute for serious books.
It was not supposed to be this way. In the beginning J. Wales wanted it to be written by reputable academics and become a reference. It totally failed.
I had already diminished my donations over wikipedia's poor academic quality. Now, it they abide by SJW culture my next donation will amount to zero.
We who must be coddled... (Score:3)
From the summary: "Several female editors told the researchers their work had been contested by male editors or that they received negative feedback from a male editor." So, the only people male editors can contest/criticize are other male editors?
From the opening portion of one the links: "We reveal how are participants perceive safety within their community.."
There's a hell of a distance between contesting your work and actual threats of violence. If a man criticizes a woman's work, that's not an issue of safety unless safety means that you are so fragile that you really, really should stay off the playground.
Now, why do I have a feeling that some of these women, are just as likely to go full on crazy if a man (or anyone sane) says that the vast majority women are not capable of being effective firefighters due to lack of upper body strength therefore its to be expected that the ratio of male to female fighterfighters will skew heavily male?
Is the BBC Just Crap Now? (Score:2)
Who makes this claim?
Certainly no college or uni professor. Unless the study is about mis-shaping facts into "truth".
Diversity and Inclusion are diametrically opposed for Leftist dogma and by Leftists. (And' please, don't lump Libertarians with these Leftists.)
Though I would welcome better written and more objective/impartial articles on Wikipedia. Knowing its limitations, I use it as a starting place and for lists o
Re: (Score:2)
"For contentious articles, possibly wikipedia could just display both versions (in a format similar to diff)"
Wikipedia already does this for ALL articles. It's called history. You can see the changes between versions if you care to look.
"Some sort of reconciliation procedure could occur"
That's what they're trying to accomplish by weeding out bad actors. Time will tell both if they are serious, and if they are successful.