this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
120 points (96.9% liked)
Out of the loop
11446 readers
6 users here now
A community that helps people stay up to date with things going on.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't doubt there are examples of volunteers reverting changes made by other volunteers. Saying it's captured is ridiculous. Wikipedia is an immense source of shared value. I'd need much more specific evidence before dismissing it, and frankly I don't expect anyone has such evidence.
There is nothing ridiculous about it, they even have specific terms for countless abuses by "senior editors", e.g. wikilawyer, content authoritharian you can look it up. Their policy was/is "Verifiability, not truth". As for evidence, there is plenty:
Tap for spoiler
Well, you were going to dismiss whatever I will link you, so there were no point in providing linksI've got proof that raw milk is much healthier than milk that's been heated for just a little bit. But, sigh, unfortunately you won't believe any article I link you. Your mind is darkened and cannot perceive my ideas. A shame.
For real though, why on god's green earth would you link the philip roth complaint? Encyclopedias are not a primary source for anything, you don't publish new information to them.
My spoiler was in response to "I'd need much more specific evidence before dismissing it", so my evidence would be dismissed anyway.
You do actually publish new relevant information to enciclopedias, that's why they created new editions in time when they were printed on paper.
My initial point was and still is, wikipedia devours itself due to editors and their egos.
The first link is paywalled, I read the other two. Seems like those posts are evidence that there are assholes editing twitter, which I'd agree is true even without links. What I disagreed with is the idea it's "captured" by bad actors.
I do think it's legitimate to have a concern about people paid to edit wikipedia by malicious organizations. I don't think Elon Musk is legitimately concerned about that; he doesn't want an information source to exist that he can't control.
But giving these specific examples is different than giving evidence that Wikipedia on some larger scale is no longer useful or reliable. And keep in mind here "reliable" doesn't mean "never wrong." I remember in school being taught that Wikipedia (like the encyclopedias that came before it) is just your first stop when learning about a subject. It's a general overview, but to become an expert a person needs to look at additional materials.
Have you actually tried to edit something on wikipedia? It's run by bots that will remove your edits. Example: in article about Argentina there was a bullshit paragraph about rio de la plata being named so by "english sailors who thought it looked like plate", that's 1) regarded and incorrect 2) no sources to the claim was given, I've tried to remove it multiple times, it stayed there, even worse, I think it migrated to other languages as well. That's just my last interaction with wikipedia, when understading that people aren't welcome came. It's mostly automated, there is no way to make these people remove bogus shit if another clown already placed it there. Your efforts would be ridiculed, you will be banned for not following one of billion obscure rules. It really is captured.
I don't care about Musk and had no idea about his stance on wikipedia. He is a dumb cunt.
So your complaint is that it's really difficult for unknown users, unfamiliar with the rules and conventions, to make edits to wikipedia? Gotta be honest that sounds... like not exactly the worst situation for it to be in.
You can be as familiar with the rules as you want as long as you haven't done specific song and dance that specific editor likes to see before editing you aren't allowed to do it. They are vicious and will delete an article itself if you will try and raise a fuss, under a pretence of topic not being notable. Not a complaint, there is systemic issue in wikipedia and it's getting worse, while wikipedia acknowledges that it exists they do nothing about it.
Have you seen an ad about wikipedia needing new contributors even once?