Hacker News Reader

Comment by christina97 | Hacker News Reader

I love Wikipedia but I’ve been more and more annoyed at it lately: more spam, more thinly veiled advertising, more political slant. And as always articles turn into a long list of facts and lack a coherent story and writing style.

Going back to EB has been very refreshing: high quality, concise, thought out articles. You can actually read them in one shot and it’s enjoyable.

Of course EB has its problems and I’m afraid that it’s in that spot where it’s still reaping the benefits of a hundred years of serious investment and prestige but is quickly declining in coverage of more recent changes.

View on HN

Once in a long while I encounter a Wikipedia article that's been edited to promote something (or whitewash somebody), and then I go and root out the edits. It's not an overwhelming problem. I'll agree about writing style, though. It's like one of those collaborative artworks, people adding small pieces everywhere, no composition. Overhauling an article so it reads well is an onerous task.

This is the way. Thank you.

I mean, audience of this site should be better-then-average fit for message of:

- Found a problem with crowd-sourced/open-source piece? Don't complain. Make a quality contribution where you can. Otherwise - see if there is a bug report already, maybe submit one if there is none. On wikipedia, that's via "Talk" section.

I have tried doing this as well, but usually the edits get reversed within 48 hours by a power user of Wikipedia. I have given up. You have never encountered this or are you a power user yourself?

There has never been a time when people didn't have a political, religious or ideological slant. French historians write different articles about the invasion of 1672 than their Dutch colleagues.

or the Latin history of tribes in the far north

There's never been a time when people didn't ____ (fight wars / die of disease / die of starvation / etc / etc). We know that very well, and that's why we work hard to improve our world.

Compare the world you were born into with those from history, and you'll see we can accomplish incredible things.

my issue with wikipedia is that its only a reflection of controlled mainstream information, and notably corporate news like CNN. every corporate news outlet like CNN has incredible bias to the point of blatant dishonesty, but because of how wikipedia works, sites like CNN are the word of god and everything they write is treated like fact. therefore wikipedia is effectively an extension of the propaganda getting pushed out by the billionaire owners of news companies.

disclaimer: its not just CNN, I'm not right-wing, yes also right wing sites are bias and dishonest, maybe even more so

I don't actually read CNN, but having a look at the Wikipedia for "Islamic terrorism" which I guess is the kind of stuff CNN avoids, there's quite a lot of coverage from non corporate sources, the first three references being The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought and And God Knows the Martyrs: Martyrdom and Violence in Jihadi-Salafism from Oxford University Press.

Just saying that saying it's all CNN like stuff may be a bit unfair to Wikipedia.

Go look at it for Hillary Clinton, and specifically the sources for anything from the past 15 years of her life. It's 80-90% corporate news sources owned or controlled by billionaires.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com