I am a self proclaimed wiki-phile, I always donated when I could. It was kind of like going to the library without the fresh book smell.
People who are inconvenienced by facts and reality are trying to start a war against them
Hate for Wikipedia comes from a few places.
The first and most important is that most people who have tried to edit Wikipedia have their first edit reverted, usually with good reason, because they don’t understand the procedures and policies. Unfortunately these procedures and policies are what maintains high quality.
Related is news articles and blogs about edit wars and less frequently that an article or group of articles is genuinely captured by one volunteer who will protect their own little fiefdoms and not allow anyone else to edit them. This happens but it’s pretty uncommon and the structure of Wikipedia means that it only really stands on fairly obscure articles.
It’s also true that Wikipedia does have an inherent western liberal bias. It’s subtle but it is there and results from the fact that for the majority of Wikipedia editors western liberalism is the water they swim in. Any claim that is counter to this ideology needs to be cited up the wazoo whereas claims that are confidant with it will often slide without citation. Those with a strong attachment to an alternative ideology often find it infuriating.
Finally there are individuals who would rather have the arbiter of truth be the powerful rather than a relatively democratic institution.
All that said Wikipedia is a remarkable achievement and an invaluable part of the internet.
Elon Musk and his cult followers are getting pissy with and declaring war on Wikipedia because they think it’s biased against them. So basically, Wikipedia is being dragged into this right wing culture war.
It’s not really a right wing culture war at this point, they’re trying to destroy any source of information not controlled by the rich fascists who’ve seized control of the state.
CIA has their own wikipedia editors. As do most large companies & rich people. Wikipedia is not exactly neutral, but for melon it’s not biased enough.
Oh man, its 2008 again. Can’t wait for them to rediscover Conservapedia and Voat.
Elon started badmouthing them. I don’t know specifically why, but it was he.
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
This has been escalating for like two decades.
Wikipedia is captured by people who value procedure more than fact, they will revert, delete, lock pages if you did something not the way this specific person with a lot of time and clout likes.
There are also examples of unpunished retaliation against people that tried to do something about it.
Citation needed
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 links
Well, you were going to dismiss whatever I will link you, so there were no point in providing links
I’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.
Sources?
Elon Musk
