this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
42 points (62.7% liked)

You Should Know

33419 readers
161 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When there is a heated, with a lot of strong and exaggerated arguments on both sides, and I don't know what to believe, or I'm overwhelmed with the raw information, I look at Wikipedia. Or even something that is not a current event, but the information I found on the internet doesn't feel reliable.

I'm sure some would find flaws there, but they do a good job of keeping it neutral and sticking to verifiable facts.

all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 110 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No, absolutely not.

For purely scientific articles Wikipedia is great. But anything remotely controversial or even political on that site should be taken with a grain of salt.

There's too many editors out there who enforce their biases and wage war on such articles.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is why you don't take anything at face value. Check the sources, which you should be doing on Wikipedia anyway.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A wikipedia sources list is not some sort of list of all available data on a subject. It's a list of what information was used to build the article.

On anything remotely divisive, there will be available primary sources for multiple viewpoints, and obviously a slanted article will largely contain sources supporting its slant and leave out sources that don't. Just checking the sources can easily result in the illusion of consensus where there is none.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm going out on a limb and assuming basic fact checking skills here, yes.

[–] nyar 18 points 1 year ago

Checking facts in a list of curated facts is not fact checking.

Most people do not actively have access to scholarly works, nor the aptitude to review it, nor the time to do so.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In this case, the primary relevant fact checking skill would be searching for sources independent of Wikipedia, in which case, why was one starting with Wikipedia in the first place?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because it's a crowdsourced way of collecting and correlating those sources.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Often, collecting and correlating sources that agree with one viewpoint of a complex issue, which is the whole problem we were discussing. If a wiki article is camped by an admin with a slant, as they often are, the sources do not represent some neutral middle ground or wisdom of the crowd, they represent the things that ended up in the article and nothing more. If you want to learn the facts of a controversial topic, why would you start with a potentially biased list?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

*citation needed

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But the fact that a lot of editors fight about such issues means that it ends up being somewhat neutral, no?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Depends on who's currently winning the fight.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The issue I've come across is vindictive or mean editors who 'own' pages and refuse to allow changes to 'their' article.

Case in point, when a rather well-known bishop was convicted of child molestation I edited his article to add that information.

Boom, reverted, no reasons given.

Anytime I added the block of information back to the article he or she reverted the changes. Wikipedia was no help, so now I refuse to edit Wikipedia articles or even treat them as factual - too many editors have their own agendas.

[–] antidote101 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you know the policies and how to find your way around Wikipedia, and are certain that you're right - you can generally have the truth prevail (as long as you have reliable sources backing up your claims).

The real trick is to know the policies and where to complain that they're not being upheld. In your case you should goto the BLP noticeboard, and ask for an uninvolved editor's help in figuring out how to, or whether the information should be added.

This generally gets others interested in advocating for the truth.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

See, it sounds like that's another way of saying "If you don't have a ton of spare time and nothing better to do with it, don't even try to edit Wikipedia"

[–] antidote101 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Depends whether your edits are consistently bad enough that they're reverted every time.

If so, then yeah, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, the premise was "vindictive or mean editors who ‘own’ pages and refuse to allow changes to ‘their’ article". The goodness or badness of the edits are not in question; there are editors who camp a page and find technicalities to revert anything that isn't theirs or that they don't like. Sometimes they don't even find technicalities, they just do it, relying on their own reputation and your ignorance. The fact that one has to learn to do an end run around them and engage in wiki politics, hell, essentially learn an entire second legal system, to "have the truth prevail" for even a minor fact with citation is exhausting. It filters out good potential editors who nonetheless have no time to engage in the behind-the-scenes drama proceedings. It's not like this hasn't been a known issue for years now.

[–] antidote101 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but like with anything in life - if you keep encountering the same problem over and over again, you should probably consider your own approach to be a factor in the process.

So sure, there probably are vindictive editors, but if it's a reoccurring theme, then something else might be at fault.

[–] dpkonofa 15 points 1 year ago

They usually freeze changes when stuff like that happens to prevent “emotional” edits. If it got removed even after the information was verified, you can appeal by providing other sources.

[–] dhork 49 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“Citogenesis” I chuckled:) XKCD is great

Oh and here’s the wiki article on the subject! With a link to the comic no less:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting

[–] Flibbertigibbet 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/7Ot7Gq1YGm4?t=1m02s

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] AbouBenAdhem 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also, check the article’s talk page—for controversial topics, the article usually represents a consensus that was reached after comparing and discussing different sources, debunking misinformation, etc.

The article pages are more subject to vandalism, edit wars, and knee-jerk reversions, but there are usually more editors committed to making sure the article reflects the talk page consensus in the long run.

[–] Doorbook 21 points 1 year ago

I remember keeping eye on some wikipedia pages during early stage of controversial topics. They do hide information and then lock the page.

There are too many misleading statements. However, it is a good start to get an understanding of the large picture. Afterwards more research is needed.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

I like the Associated Press and Reuters, too. Their articles are pretty bland, but that’s kind of the point. They make their money by licensing their content to as many publications as possible, so they have a major financial incentive to remain neutral and reliable.

However, the fact that there’s a financial incentive at all can call their reporting into question, of course. Money corrupts everything. Still, I consider them better than most.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wikipedia isn't some magical concensus platform, it's just a website with admins and power users like anything else. I wouldn't take Lemmy or Reddit at face value and you shouldn't take Wikipedia at face value either for the same reasons. It's not neutral at all and feelings, biases and personal beliefs are all over the website because the people with power keep it that way.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

I check Wikipedia for most facts, controversial or not.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I cannot get rid of the feeling that you post this primarily to expose users to the backlash your post will inarguably get.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, I didn't anticipate significant backslash. The criticism of Wikipedia is valid, but I'm comparing it to the raw stream of BS I get on social media, not to an idealistic vision of what wikipedia should be

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Oh that. Yes in comparison to that even controversial Wikipedia entries are saint like.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, but like, places like AP and Reuters are right there and free. If someone's thirsty, you shouldn't point them at a dirty puddle because it's better than sewage, you should turn the faucet on.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Raw" news sources don't aggregate though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Aggregating a biased list of sources is worse than not aggregating at all. I would rather someone not know a story at all than they know one side of it as "the truth"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@fbmac This article in defense of Citizendium.org , an alternative to Wikipedia with author identity verification, is a great anecdotal rundown of why this is a bad idea. Give Citizendium a try, I'm not saying it is perfect but it is a bit better.

https://driftingharbor.wordpress.com/2022/12/16/why-save-citizendium-my-reason-number-1/

[–] PP_BOY_ -1 points 1 year ago