I think having standards around what sources are acceptable is sort of a required feature if you want to be a reliable source of facts. There will always be people upset that their particular worldview doesn't fit in a place that is trying to be a factual description of reality. If you're upset about eastern medicine not being taken seriously enough do some double blind properly constructed studies showing why it's effective. If it isn't effective don't expect it to be taken seriously as medicine.
You completely missed the point. COMPLETELY. The reality is that tons of studies are faked daily and "facts" change based on politics. Also big companies and powerful people have their info changed. Like Kamala Harris who had all the negative shit she did removed before the election. For example locking innocent people in jail and not letting them go when she knew they were innocent.
The sad reality is that the scientific methods are just as corrupt and misleading as any other source. There are countless articles on these so called "peer reviewed" articles being accepted without single person even reading the abstract. My all time favorite is[0]
I don't mind articles being policed edited with propaganda so much.
What I do mind, is talk pages being policed and edited. This is new!
It used to be the case that if you visited a controversial article that didnt quite pass the "sniff test", you could then go to its talk pages and witness all the controversy laid bare, and make up your own mind on something.
Now there's some very inventive archiving and cleaning up and even censoring of people's comments in place, it feels like people getting "disappeared".
My biggest problem with Wikipedia now is not the bias. I can read through it and I never even made the assumption Wikipedia is trustworthy on political issues.
My problem is that the Wikimedia foundation is becoming more corrupt. They receive loads of money on donations but they need much less, so they spend it on events and paychecks for their friends. My stance is that if you want to help them do not donate now. Their spending is easily 10x inflated even if you account that they are one of the most visited websites on the Internet
Wikipedia was never intended to be a be an arbitrator of truth. It is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and it's only purpose is to serve as a repository for information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject.
Have you ever tried to correct something on Wikipedia?
I did, many times its reverted by some account that has more rights than you due to the fact that he wrote more than you.
The system rewards people who write more with more power so the people who already wrote most of it also decide who or what can be added. Its a repository for information but its selected by people who have an aligned bias.
>it does an excellent job of that.
For the most part yes. If i want to read something about an animal, a chemical, a city etc. its perfectly fine. If its about politics related stuff its not. Historical stuff is also questionable sometimes.
Wikipedia: Since Sanger's departure from Wikipedia, he has been critical of the project, describing it in 2007 as being "broken beyond repair".[2]
Poor guy is really beating a dead horse about "left wing" Wikipedia. Oddly, he doesn't seem to be working on Conservapedia [https://www.conservapedia.com/Larry_Sanger] but something called Encyclosphere
There's a few more Sanger "Wikipedia but better I promise" projects you missed -- Digital Universe, Infobitt, and Everipedia. Not that any of them amounted to anything.
But I think you've hit upon an important point here -- Sanger has been coasting off his early involvement with Wikipedia for the last 20 years. At this point, the Wikipedia project owes much more to the editors who have been working on it for the past 20 years than it does to him.
yes, it's absolutely politically biased & censored, some "power-editors" are former employees of wikimedia, you have no chance to add an alternative view/source on an article where they have some left-wing agenda to promote
But there is zero proof I've seen it's worse than 10 or 20 years ago. Which would be amazing if it's held that tide back. It would be far better than encyclopedias for bias as well.
It's taken a decade+ but the entry for a siphon seems like it's finally correct (It's closer than it was anyway). That's no small feat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon
Quantifiable evidence is needed to make this point. I agree it's under constant growing attack but so far it looks like it's doing really well.
Is there any reasonable evidence for this? I've seen this claim repeated many times but if it's such an ultimate truth there must be some actual evidence for it. When I read Wikipedia i find individual bias in articles - say American folk heros are portrayed very favourably. Company pages will be filled with twisted narratives. Scientology pages are battlegrounds as their stooges fight for every word. But I cant see any inherent left wing bias. If anything I (as a European) would say English Wikipedia is right-wing biased and overly religious as that reflects the slanted american political spectrum - but again my personal perception from the articles I've read and I would be able to find examples but have no objective evidence for this.
[+] [-] idiotsecant|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timbo1642|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] no_time|4 years ago|reply
[0]:https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam
[+] [-] tpoacher|4 years ago|reply
What I do mind, is talk pages being policed and edited. This is new!
It used to be the case that if you visited a controversial article that didnt quite pass the "sniff test", you could then go to its talk pages and witness all the controversy laid bare, and make up your own mind on something.
Now there's some very inventive archiving and cleaning up and even censoring of people's comments in place, it feels like people getting "disappeared".
[+] [-] Kim_Bruning|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sharikone|4 years ago|reply
My problem is that the Wikimedia foundation is becoming more corrupt. They receive loads of money on donations but they need much less, so they spend it on events and paychecks for their friends. My stance is that if you want to help them do not donate now. Their spending is easily 10x inflated even if you account that they are one of the most visited websites on the Internet
[+] [-] Avamander|4 years ago|reply
Smaller articles are fine, those are less likely to be corrupted by persistent and small attempts at changing the narrative
[+] [-] hmrtn|4 years ago|reply
Opinions aside, it does an excellent job of that.
[+] [-] noxer|4 years ago|reply
I did, many times its reverted by some account that has more rights than you due to the fact that he wrote more than you.
The system rewards people who write more with more power so the people who already wrote most of it also decide who or what can be added. Its a repository for information but its selected by people who have an aligned bias.
>it does an excellent job of that.
For the most part yes. If i want to read something about an animal, a chemical, a city etc. its perfectly fine. If its about politics related stuff its not. Historical stuff is also questionable sometimes.
[+] [-] vixen99|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] okareaman|4 years ago|reply
Poor guy is really beating a dead horse about "left wing" Wikipedia. Oddly, he doesn't seem to be working on Conservapedia [https://www.conservapedia.com/Larry_Sanger] but something called Encyclosphere
[2] https://www.itnews.com.au/news/wikipedia-broken-beyond-repai...
[+] [-] duskwuff|4 years ago|reply
But I think you've hit upon an important point here -- Sanger has been coasting off his early involvement with Wikipedia for the last 20 years. At this point, the Wikipedia project owes much more to the editors who have been working on it for the past 20 years than it does to him.
[+] [-] timbo1642|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyxor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron695|4 years ago|reply
But there is zero proof I've seen it's worse than 10 or 20 years ago. Which would be amazing if it's held that tide back. It would be far better than encyclopedias for bias as well.
It's taken a decade+ but the entry for a siphon seems like it's finally correct (It's closer than it was anyway). That's no small feat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon
Quantifiable evidence is needed to make this point. I agree it's under constant growing attack but so far it looks like it's doing really well.
[+] [-] estaseuropano|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] igorzx31|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gorjusborg|4 years ago|reply
I regularly find Wikipedia entries helpful and factual. How is that terrible?