🇳🇱
@djsumdog Wikipedia has high quality good content and is relatively not biased (it is sometimes bias).
Snopes on the other hand is a bias piece of shit.
They do have a perspective. But is a democratic system so their perspective is little more than the perspective of experts on any one subject. There is a lean, as I said, but that lean is towards those facts which are accepted by the expert community on a subject. That said it is only their language that leans towards accepted consensus, they still include contrary opinions no matter how absurd.
Well yes and no. On wikipedia the gatekeepers are the general public, not the experts. However the policy adopted by the general public agrees that experts should be differed to, so you will see the votes generally favor an experts opinion on a matter, but they are free to vote to the contrary.
So the gatekeeping of academics doesnt really apply to Wikipedia since it isnt the academics themselves who have any voting power compared to the general public.
As for the gate keeping of academics, as a side note, while true, and in this case the academics themselves and not the general public get the say, it is generally not much of a gated community. If you wish to submit a paper for a journal there is no requirement you be an expert or hold a degree. The paper is judged on its own merrit, and not based on if the conclusions are agreed upon but rather if the process used in the paper is free from errors, and the quality of the sources used by a similar standard.
Highly controversial topics with generally unaccepted conclusions get posted all the time should the proper scientific rigor be present.
I'm not sure what you mean by "voting" on Wikipedia, I've edited an article or two in my day, I've never seen a vote on anything. But any article that is the least bit contentious is locked, and only a wiki editors get to weigh in. That the public gets a say in topics about which there is no debate is meaningless to the question about how debated topics are handled.
Sauying a person proved a thing does not mean a think is proven... If you wish to argue how such a claim is proven and thus prove your point go for it. But its pretty weak to just claim as an axiom for it to be proven.
The irony is that peer-review is just as open as submitting journals in many cases. So if you can identify a case where the data itself is clearly and provably false you can submit it just like anyone else.
As for wikipedia voting, reversion wars are capped at 2 reverts per person. So if someone reverts your changes you can revert back. If you run out of reverts and still feel your contribution is correct then you go to the talk page and assert your point and ask for a community vote. The result of the vote determines if the edit stands.
So yea, pretty much everything is constantly up for vote should you feel another editor or group of editors are wrong.
Taking a democratic vote about facts is stupid.
The irony is that peer-review is just as open as submitting journals in many cases. So if you can identify a case where the data itself is clearly and provably false you can submit it just like anyone else.
Publishing is the only metric of legitimacy, and publishing is highly, highly subject to clout.
I think your confusing clout with proven expertise and mastery of a subject.
@freemo I’m really not.
@freemo I have never spoken to or heard from a scientist who agrees with this assertion, unless they already have clout within that system. Everyone else acknowledges that it operates this way.
While I kind of expect people who lack expertise but still think they are scientists to share your opinion. I'd also expect the people who worked hard to become experts and are recognized as such to agree with the system.
So you really arent saying anything useful there, yes, I'd expect wanna be scientists who lack expertise to complain that people see them for what they are.
To be more specific, experts tend to prefer systems that have experts... yes. Experts do love being in communities where they can be productive and get to the bottom of facts without all the noise of uneducated people who cant even make an evidence based argument that isnt riddled with obvious errors.
So Wikipedia is valid because it is democratic, while journals are valid because they aren't democratic.
Normalcy bias is a hell of a drug.
@anonymoose @djsumdog
Wow you really are struggling here.. no I didnt say anything remotely like that.
Wikipedia is democrat and open to all to vote. Ergo the original assertion that there is gate keeping by academics is erroneous.
Similarly journals have value because anyone can submit peer-review and objections and that peer-review process is discussed, usually openly. Thus ensuring that any objections or corrections are considered and open to the reader to review and thus judge the merit of the journal.
Its about open processes, not democracy.
Wikipedia is not democratic, because that would be stupid. In practice, it is controlled and narrated by a relatively small percentage of participants.
Peer-review is also not open, as the parameters for credibility are 100% decided by an in-group who inevitably function as "tastemakers" for their field. The end result is obvious modification to scientific consensus in response to political consensus.
Stop pretending that these are not centralized system just because you think it would be bad optics to approve of it.
@djsumdog @anonymoose
No it is 100% democratic. All issues are held to public votes and the result is binding. This includes article edits when there is a conflict as well as wikipedia policy itself.
Peer-review is open in the sense that anyone can submit peer-review. In doing so your feedback is included and must be responded to. The result is that it goes on record with he article and thus. demonstrates the credibility of the process (or lack thereof).
> Peer-review is open in the sense that anyone can submit peer-review. In doing so your feedback is included and must be responded to.
I don't know why you keep making this claim. I suppose bureaucrats under Lenin also believed they lived in an open meritocracy.
@djsumdog @anonymoose
Yes yes, experts are pure angels working tirelessly for the betterment of man, they do not have base human emotions or motivation DON’T EVER QUESTION THEM!
Truly this is the way of science Lysenkoism . 🙄
I recommend you read less Neil Degrasse Tyson more Richard Feynman
>Another of the qualities of science is that it teaches the value of rational thought as well as the importance of freedom of thought; the positive results that come from doubting that the lessons are all true. You must here distinguish–especially in teaching–the science from the forms or procedures that are sometimes used in developing science. It is easy to say, “We write, experiment, and observe, and do this or that.” You can copy that form exactly. But great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. In the same way, it is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudo-science. In this way, we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers.
>It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown.” And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.
Never claimed experts are angels or perfect, this is why the system is open to anyone objecting and thus reviewed... But yes, you do need to be an expert on a subject if you wish to have any valuable contribution to the bleeding edge of a topic (research)
I have read everything Feynman has published, I have read nothing Neil Degrasse Tyson has published... nice try.
@anonymoose
Its almost like experts would rather be more productive by working with other experts than to waste all day arguing with a flat-earther who insists they are right because they dont know any better.... Funny that.
@djsumdog @natsock