Why Wikipedia is profoundly unreliable on controversial topics, especially those touching on corporate interests, foreign policy, or generally those where the 1% have a particular view to impose. A long read by Helen Buyniski
https://prn.fm/wikipedia-rotten-core/
via: https://twitter.com/Tim_Hayward_/status/1042640272428072967
Any opinion of anyone who read the article? (My opinion, >500 characters)
Any opinion of anyone who read the article?
I'm a hobbyist writer and I found the community to be quite well balanced so far, but I edit in non-controversial stuff.
I see two points are crossing in this article, which I don't like: the money and political stuff (like money from the foundation going to privates and so on) and the impartiality of the pages. This are two different matters.
The matter of corruption in the wikimedia foundation is serious and I do not have the time to explore it all right now, but I'll surely take the time in this days.
The impartiality of the pages is a matter of how the community reacts to manipulation, which is more close to what I am in contact with.
In the article it quotes AstraZeneca, which at a quick read seems alright. Quotes an article which was vandalized for a bit too long, which I mean, happens.
Wikipedia feels to me quite neutral, basically. It is a tertiary source, so it can't come up with stuff, and the source is all that matters.
The problem in political pages is what to include and what not, and that is why the best source of information is the Talk page, not the article itself, IMO =D
In any case, the technology of wikipedia is prone to abuse. It is centralized, it doesn't have players to put each one in check, and sometimes I'm even surprised of how far we are going with the tools we are using on it.
@taoeffect care to elaborate that? I provided a reason for saying that, in the need of sources and in the public debate over what to put in the page and what not
I feel weird when stuff I say is quoted out of context =D
@arteteco I can give a concrete example from an issue I care about, which is 9/11 and the War on Terror. Everything on Wikipedia about those topics is strictly policed to ensure that only lies and disinfo are allowed.
@taoeffect If you can help me to verify that quicker, can you point me out 2-3 not true things written on wikipedia about both topics? I don't feel like skimming through all sources if you've already done the job. I can see if I can correct that, in case
>500 characters
Ok, I was thinking more of pointing out unreliable sources in the page as it is right now, not a list of links which include many hours of videos and articles in physics, which is not really my field =D
I usually just write in naturalist articles, I can try to make sense of the sources you link just in term of reliability, but I wouldn't push those sources in the page unless I am sure about it.
For example:
[2], europhysicsnews, seems like does not have any peer review on the journal and wouldn't be considered a reliable source by any standard in wikipedia, regardless of the article (also check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_62#Europhysics_News )
[4] Video is not available
[4.1] and others quote wikipedia, which is not to be used as a source, and is weird since you are directly accusing it of being unreliable and intentionally false in the first place
Others are hours long videos or long papers on physics which, with all my good will, but don't have the knowledge or time to watch and study.
Can't really help you here, I'm out of my depth in knowledge and can't watch many hours of videos to make sense of it. Meanwhile, I don't see partiality on the page, and the archives are very, very long, but a good read to see why a source was or was not added.
Just as a note to your website: would be better to point directly to the source instead of your tweet which itself links to the source.
FTR: I have no position on the 9/11 happenings, I don't want to insinuate you are wrong, or that you are right. I just don't know enough about it
"Can't really help you here"
That is expected.
"I just don't know enough about it"
This is very clear.
Anyway, Wikipedia is sh*t.
@taoeffect I don't really like how you cherrypick through what I write. It took me some time to check all your sources and watch the documents to try to fix a page you care for, and you are just pointing out how my uselessness was expected and how I don't know enough? It's frankly frustrating.
The sources I highlighted are anyway not reliable or available (2, 4, 4.1), the other 3 (2 videos of hours and the FEMA report) are the ones I couldn't understand, try to write in the discussion page and see why they find them unreliable.
Hope this helps more.
"It's frankly frustrating."
You know what's more frustrating than that?
Spoon feeding you everything you need to do the right thing and then having to listen to your bullshit.
People died, Manu. They're continuing to die, both here and abroad.
@taoeffect Let's get this straight.
You made a post about how pages on wikipedia are filled with lies.
I asked you to point me some unreliable source, so that I could try to fix it. You didn't.
You posted me some other source. The once I could check were not reliable themselves.
How is this "Spoon feeding you everything you need to do the right thing and then having to listen to your bullshit." and more important, what does it mean?
@arteteco I can't have a serious conversation with a person who considers any of the sources on the wikipedia pages for 9/11 to be "reliable". They're all unreliable. Every single one of them, lol. That's the problem.
@taoeffect You mean national geographic is unreliable? I'm just checking the sources, they are pretty normal here: CNN, BBC, The Guardian, Washington post, NYTimes... if you want to propose a modification on WP:RS to consider those sources unreliable you'll have to define what you mean by reliable and what not, and if you take away big newspaper, exclude small ones because of course they are unchecked... what's left? Primary sources?
@arteteco When it comes to 9/11, these organizations are not just "unreliable", they're criminal.
@arteteco This is why Wikipedia won't allow basic facts like the ones I showed you to enter that page. Because they'd go to jail.
@arteteco Another way of phrasing that is Wikipedia is helping to cover up mass murder and protecting those who did it. Good job! 👍
@arteteco Sure, have fun, knock yourself out:
https://fixingtao.com/2016/11/911-was-an-inside-inside-outside-job/
https://mstdn.io/@taoeffect/100335953508292779