Hacker News Reader

Comment by afh1 | Hacker News Reader

Yes, banned by the status quo for trying to disturb it. Wikipedia is nowadays highly politicized and more time and energy are spent on politics than on actually contributing with any useful knowledge. I've stopped contributing years ago after a decade of writing because of how bad things had gotten. It's a lost battle, all that remains is scorched earth filled with toxic editors trying to push their POV and banning everyone who exposes them or attempts to change things.

View on HN

Yes agreed, for example, there was an interesting table on the starlink page I used to check every so often showing which countries had access to starlink as it was rolled out. Was interesting to see the expansion.

Of course, some editor decided it was 'marketing' for starlink so it got deleted despite loads of people protesting. It was the only source I could find easily for showing which country got starlink when.

A huge list of prose is still on the page (not marketing?) showing the updates in a very hard to read and not comprehensive way. Something is really quite wrong over there.

It’s a shame :( There’s a lot of blatantly incorrect information on wikipedia, and i’ve had multiple wikipedia edits reverted due to ’bad sources’

And the worst is the cycle:

1. There is incorrect information on wikipedia.

2. Legacy news publishes an article, using wikipedia as source (of course).

3. Now the incorrect information is essentially canonized

On the other hand, some of the best is when a hoax written by a monk in the north of England some time around 1300 is debunked by late 20th century scholarship, and eventually someone makes Wikipedia no longer re-hash a propagandist revision of the Battle of Stirling Bridge re-set in Wales that stood unchallenged for almost 7 centuries.

* https://youtube.com/v/mLdB5s7-h0w

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

Circular references. This methodology has been called out by several researchers. NYT, WaPo are key users of this technique.

Off the top of my head: https://citationintegrity.org/

Wikipedia features prominently as a defaulter.

I don't know that some dude's blog is an accurate judge of the listed entities

Citogenesis, a well-known hazard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...

or:

1: the media has a vested interest in only reporting a certain slant, because it involves criticizing the media

2: because the media is the only source deemed reliable, that slant becomes the truth

If you spot it in Wikipedia, point it out, it does get removed. Leaving a comment on the talk page  gets editors on-board to patrol for accidental attempts to add the incorrect information back in. Wikipedia does not like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citogenesis

>There is incorrect information on wikipedia.

Wikipedia has an article titled “Yahweh.” Now, as I am a Christian,[8] "Yahweh" is the name of my God.[0]

This is one of Sanger's proposed changes and this is not an undisputed fact, more like a dispute among theologicans [1] and with the confidence he wants this change implemented, I am highly sceptical, that misinformation will decrease.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Nine_Theses#....

[1] https://christianeducatorsacademy.com/is-yahweh-the-christia...

> There was an interesting table on the starlink page I used to check every so often showing which countries had access to starlink as it was rolled out. Was interesting to see the expansion. [...] Of course, some editor decided it was 'marketing' for starlink so it got deleted despite loads of people protesting.

...I mean, yeah, that doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic. "Marketing" might be a bit strong but that doesn't mean it belongs in a general encyclopedia.

Why not? It's the first time many developing countries have had access to high quality internet at an often relatively affordable price?

Huh, ironically, the opposite happened with Tesla, when numerous editors warred to include a model on the list of "Fastest Production Vehicles", even though the model hadn't been released, based on a press release from Tesla (and even that said it was a simulated, expected number).

It got to the point where there was a column for "verified" numbers, others, and then "Manufacturer projected" numbers.

In that specific case, you could add those data to Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19867977#P2541

Yeah, try to make any substantive change on many pages and you'll get met with a barrage of "WP:OR! WP:POV! WP:NPS! WP:WTF!" and don't fall into the amateur trap (that certain editors hope you will) of reverting their reversion. They'll look to get you blocked for a revert war. "What should I do then?" "You should respond to my comments on the Talk page for why I reverted you." "But you haven't made any comments on the Talk page about that." "That's beside the point."

For a few years now Wikipedia has had a mentorship feature where every new user can ask an experienced user for help through the homepage. They usually come through and help you go through the alphabet soup.

> "But you haven't made any comments on the Talk page about that."

Well then, make that comment yourself and you can go ahead and revert it later if the other person does not respond.

Or, eventually, as a user who had nearly 2,000 contributions over 10+ years, you finally say "Why even bother?" and just leave the project, like I did.

I’ll keep the status quo of rejecting MAGA lies over allowing Fox News as a reliable source any day

Go use conservapedia or grokpedia if you want the lies, no one is forcing you to use Wikipedia, and no one is asking for it to be turned into shit like everything the alt right touches

And despite all this, it's still probably the best website around. Just because everything else is even worse.

I pay for the EB. Wish I'd bought the last print edition back in 2010.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com