No. Fuck you Snopes. Your site is continually full of bullshit. Anyone who donates to either Snopes or Wikipedia is a god damn fool. The Internet would evolve better tools if both of these pieces of shit went away.

@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.

@freemo @djsumdog Wikipedia puts a message into any vessel that can hold one. It's difficult to do for articles like "Identification of alkaline earth cations," but they would if they could.

@natsock
@djsumdog

Maybe if you want to consider settled facts stated as fact as being a "bias" sure. ::shrug::

@freemo @djsumdog I'm not going to convince you that Wikipedia admins have a perspective.

@natsock

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.

@djsumdog

@freemo @natsock @djsumdog very blue-pilled take, sir. Probably more or less true, but that misses the bias of academic institutions that gatwkeep 'expert' status.

@anonymoose

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.

@djsumdog @natsock

@freemo @djsumdog @natsock Sokal² proved conclusively that papers need not meet any standards of rigor if only they arrive at the 'correct' conclusion. The correlate, that papers meeting the most stringent standards of rigor are blackballed for reaching the wrong conclusions was shown by the department of East Anglia email dumps.

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.

@anonymoose

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.

@djsumdog @natsock

@freemo

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.

@anonymoose @djsumdog

@natsock

I think your confusing clout with proven expertise and mastery of a subject.

@djsumdog @anonymoose

@freemo I’m really not.

@djsumdog @anonymoose

@natsock

You really are

@djsumdog @anonymoose

@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.

@djsumdog @anonymoose

@natsock

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.

@djsumdog @anonymoose

@freemo @natsock @djsumdog

>I’d also expect the people who worked hard to become experts and are recognized as such to agree with the system.

People who the system give clout to like the system? You don’t say….

@anonymoose

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.

@djsumdog @natsock

@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