YSK There’s someone running around Lemmy posting misinformation against Wikipedia
YSK There’s someone running around Lemmy posting misinformation against Wikipedia
He generally shows most of the signs of the misinformation accounts:
- Wants to repeatedly tell basically the same narrative and nothing else
- Narrative is fundamentally false
- Not interested in any kind of conversation or in learning that what he’s posting is backwards from the values he claims to profess
I also suspect that it’s not a coincidence that this is happening just as the Elon Musks of the world are ramping up attacks on Wikipedia, specially because it is a force for truth in the world that’s less corruptible than a lot of the others, and tends to fight back legally if someone tries to interfere with the free speech or safety of its editors.
Anyway, YSK. I reported him as misinformation, but who knows if that will lead to any result.
Edit: Number of people real salty that I’m talking about this: Lots
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't know exactly what is going on with WikiPedia right this moment, mostly because I am neither glued to the news nor to WikiPedia, and I have no idea who this user you talk about is or what they are saying. However, WikiPedia isnt exactly a 100% trustworthy source, and it never really was.
Calling WikiPedia a "force for truth" is kind of silly, in my opinion. It can be helpful with basic information or finding potential sources, but it is definitely not something you should just immediately take everything on the site at face value. Within the last maybe 10 years or so, the credibility of its sources have started to come into question, at least on some of their recently authored/edited articles. It certainly doesnt help that literally anyone can edit most pages, and that WikiPedia is not a verifiably neutral information source on most things. What I mean by this is that, WikiPedia might list both positive and negative reception about a certain film or video game, for example, but they usually wont mention whether the negative points are outliers or whether there is overwhelmingly more positive reception except if there is a controversy section. This gives a surface appearance of being neutral, but actually skews toward whichever side is the dissenting opinion. For video games and film, they at least list reviews which can kind of mitigate this, but on articles regarding history or art, you cant exactly put reviews on historian/artist opinions. This can lead (and has lead) to some instances of sources quoting themselves (which I think is against WikiPedia rules?) and other hilarity.
It brings tons of information to the masses, all over the world, in every language, for free, without ads. Shut the fuck up.
And some people really don’t like that it does that.
Yes it does. But not all of that information is always true. Wikipedia pages are vandalized all the time, people quote sources that are later revealed as made up or not credible, these are all things that happen everywhere, WikiPedia is not immune to this. That is why I said WikiPedia is not a "force for truth." It can be correct, but can you guarantee that every time you go to WikiPedia, the information on any given page will always be 100% correct? This is all I meant.
i would call being resistant to misinformation, being a force against misinformation, is that enough to warrant calling it a force for truth?
They do it for free, too, what more you can ask for? Well you can unreasonably ask them, these people, humans, fallible biological machines, to "be" correct 100% of the time, even when moderators may not be available, even when people didn't yet report misinfo, something you'd never ask anyone else to do or be.
Oh wait you did ask that, so I think there's a very good reason to believe you don't really care for what you preach.
Do you ever go back to a WikiPedia article after you read it to check if it has been updated? Yeah, didn't think so. Most people don't. Thats why there is danger in just believing everything on WikiPedia because its on there and its free. Its not a bad resource, but it isn't always a good source either.
But obviously you and others have some weird fetish regarding WikiPedia, so I guess this is where the conversation stops. People here be making it out like I am saying WikiPedia is evil and that is definitely not what I am saying, but I suppose on Lemmy it doesn't really matter. People believe whatever they want to regardless.
k
There will always be issues with Wikipedia, but overwhelmingly it is a useful and reliable resource. Also, "its sources" are any reputable journalism from around the world.
Well as I said it, isn't completely useless. I mean, sources aren't always reputable. People make mistakes, people act in bad faith, things happen.
I was just saying that WikiPedia is not a "bastion of truth," because it is very susceptible to wrong information. Sure, the information may be correct most of the time on popular high traffic pages, but on low traffic pages, or pages that used to be low traffic and suddenly became high traffic because of some topical issue, can you really be sure that you aren't reading wrong or biased information? That is all I am bringing up. I think any person with a brain can realize this, but I wanted to be sure to mention it regardless, as many people seem to not meet that low specification.
All those words... not one article of falsehood to back it up with.
You are allowed to freely link wikipedia here, and post screenshots.
Go ahead. Hit us with some examples. You likely have plenty of pages in mind already, so this shouldn't take long.
I hear a lotta hearsay...
I have a different perspective. I do think they are a force for truth, because it is a forum for openly sharing information. Not all of the information that is shared will neccesarily be truthful or correct, but as long as it remains open and collaborative, the truth will prevail.
Another point is that the sources for the information are cited (or at least requested and notated when missing), and it must always be the responsibility of the reader to check and understand the sources.
but it is definitely not something you should just immediately take everything on the site at face value.
I don't think this should ever be the expectation for any source of information, really.
I remember some guys in high school altered the wikipedia page for the high school or principal or something and it was up in its altered hilarious state for a few days before it got reverted. I always think about that when reading Wikipedia pages. I might be reading a Wikipedia page during a window where the information is maybe disingenuous. Always good to be on your toes.
I've heard from a few people that there are people that edit a lot of articles with a lot of bias and have been getting away with it. It'd be interesting for a journalist to really go into it.
I’ve heard from a few people that there are people that edit a lot of articles with a lot of bias and have been getting away with it. It’d be interesting for a journalist to really go into it.
This is definitely the case for certain niche topics. A few power editors can push agendas as long as they have a handful of reliable sources, no end of time, and a good knowledge of Wiki's bureaucratic processes.
Love wiki, but don't take it for more than a very useful encyclopedia - as the name suggests.
It can be helpful with basic information or finding potential sources, but it is definitely not something you should just immediately take everything on the site at face value.
This I definitely agree with. Some of the rest of your message is, in my opinion, not exactly how it works, but all of this is besides the point. What I am saying is misinformation is that WP doxxed its editors to an Indian court, kowtows to any fascist government that asks them to, or is protecting a genocidal cult. All of those were claimed and then when we tried to talk about the claims with the person posting them, that person either evaporated or dissembled about it.
If someone posted an article saying that anyone can edit Wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt, I would never have cared and probably would have upvoted them.
No