7 ms·

The Wikipedia ideals of having open, unbiased, and free access to information and being able to freely collaborate and edit articles directly conflict. If editi

The Wikipedia ideals of having open, unbiased, and free access to information and being able to freely collaborate and edit articles directly conflict. If editing is "free", so too is slander and misinformation. Unfortunately, I have no good solution to this problem. But then again, neither does Wikipedia.

guard-of-terra 13y ago
They can start by actively discouraging lawyering and deletionism.
- atdt 13y ago
  How?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- lazugod 13y ago
  "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers and deleters."
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    You want axes? You want them big? You want to swing your axe into the guts of lawyers? Do the lawyers have HUGE GUTS you want to RIP AND TEAR? Then this axe is for you.
- derleth 13y ago
  Deletionism is the only reason Wikipedia remains using. Without deletions, it would have sunk into the world of spam-trap and personal blog platform long ago.
  - ars 13y ago
    Delete the garbage, but leave the trivial. I hate deletionists.
    - derleth 13y ago
      > Delete the garbage Which is still deletionism.
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    Why? If they define an article "A blog of John Ass", I just won't read it and my experience would not degrade. I still get nuclear physics in "Nuclear Physics" article, amn't I? I can't see how having more articles will make things worse.
    - derleth 13y ago
      > I still get nuclear physics in "Nuclear Physics" article, amn't I? Not at the same level of quality, because they also won't be deleting the nonsense crank pseudo-science version of "Nuclear Physics" which would confuse you terribly. Deleting crap is one of the best ways to make the project as a whole useful.
      - guard-of-terra 13y ago
        Well, I won't read that version, I'll only read the "real" one. Bonus points: journalists and common folk will stop pretending everything in wikipedia is true like they do now.
        derleth 13y ago
        > Well, I won't read that version, I'll only read the "real" one. You won't know which is which unless you already know enough to not need to look it up in a general reference such as Wikipedia. That's the point.
stfu 13y ago
The idea of an unbiased article is in my opinion just an illusion. In reality truth is a negotiation between different stakeholders and some form of settlement at the end where each side can somehow get away with. I personally find the next posting of the author much more revealing [1]. It is a discussion on how much meaning one can find in a simple sentence such as "____ is a Jewish-American politician" all the way to the suggestion that some by "tagging all the Jews in Wikipedia dream of a time when those lists might be of service to the police." Just goes to illustrate how much subjectivity can be infused into a few words that are in itself unquestionable facts. [1] http://www.markbernstein.org/May13/WikipediaAndTheJews.html http://www.markbernstein.org/May13/WikipediaAndTheJews.html
derleth 13y ago
> If editing is "free", so too is slander and misinformation. Edrogan said much the same thing about Twitter.

guard-of-terra 13y ago

They can start by actively discouraging lawyering and deletionism.

atdt 13y ago
How?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
lazugod 13y ago
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers and deleters."
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  You want axes? You want them big? You want to swing your axe into the guts of lawyers? Do the lawyers have HUGE GUTS you want to RIP AND TEAR? Then this axe is for you.
derleth 13y ago
Deletionism is the only reason Wikipedia remains using. Without deletions, it would have sunk into the world of spam-trap and personal blog platform long ago.
- ars 13y ago
  Delete the garbage, but leave the trivial. I hate deletionists.
  - derleth 13y ago
    > Delete the garbage Which is still deletionism.
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  Why? If they define an article "A blog of John Ass", I just won't read it and my experience would not degrade. I still get nuclear physics in "Nuclear Physics" article, amn't I? I can't see how having more articles will make things worse.
  - derleth 13y ago
    > I still get nuclear physics in "Nuclear Physics" article, amn't I? Not at the same level of quality, because they also won't be deleting the nonsense crank pseudo-science version of "Nuclear Physics" which would confuse you terribly. Deleting crap is one of the best ways to make the project as a whole useful.
    - guard-of-terra 13y ago
      Well, I won't read that version, I'll only read the "real" one. Bonus points: journalists and common folk will stop pretending everything in wikipedia is true like they do now.
      - derleth 13y ago
        > Well, I won't read that version, I'll only read the "real" one. You won't know which is which unless you already know enough to not need to look it up in a general reference such as Wikipedia. That's the point.

stfu 13y ago

The idea of an unbiased article is in my opinion just an illusion. In reality truth is a negotiation between different stakeholders and some form of settlement at the end where each side can somehow get away with. I personally find the next posting of the author much more revealing [1]. It is a discussion on how much meaning one can find in a simple sentence such as "____ is a Jewish-American politician" all the way to the suggestion that some by "tagging all the Jews in Wikipedia dream of a time when those lists might be of service to the police." Just goes to illustrate how much subjectivity can be infused into a few words that are in itself unquestionable facts. [1] http://www.markbernstein.org/May13/WikipediaAndTheJews.html http://www.markbernstein.org/May13/WikipediaAndTheJews.html

derleth 13y ago

> If editing is "free", so too is slander and misinformation. Edrogan said much the same thing about Twitter.