Hacker News Reader

Comment by Godel_unicode | Hacker News Reader

You're aware that internet.org provides free access to Wikipedia, yes? How can you possibly object to that?

I hope you're being sarcastic, because Wikipedia and Facebook alone are no match for the whole Internet --- nevermind the fact that each wiki page links to other sites on the real Internet, to which it owes its information from, and would otherwise be inaccessible with "internet.org".

So you'd rather they have access to nothing than access to a portion of the Internet? That's a pretty cut off your nose to spite your face argument.

This is free access to a huge trove of information.

This is free access to a huge trove of information.

So is archive.org, but it's not the Internet. They deliberately decided to give it the misleading name of "Internet.org" --- no doubt there would be far less outcry if it was named something else.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmyong_(network)

Again. You would prefer they do nothing than provide this?

That link is absurd hyperbole.

It's the package deal that is objectionable

Wikipedia is extremely biased and, more important, it is not the internet. If you teach people that internet is cable tv 2.0 very bad things will happen.

I'm not aware of this "extreme" bias in Wikipedia. What is it?

There is research comparing wikipedia to encyclopaedia britannica which concludes that wikipedia has more "left code words" per article than EB.

However a) this research is very US-centric b) the paper also concludes that code word per word is pretty much equal between the two, wikipedia just has longer articles

1. https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/do-experts-or-collective-intellig...

I tend to feel that this research is fundamentally bullshit.

What bias? I’ve seen Wikipedia editors working round the clock to prevent bias and vandalism from appearing on pages about controversial people such as Martin Shkreli

Reply on news.ycombinator.com