Everything wrong with the Wikipedia is something that is just generally wrong with working with humans.
-
Everything wrong with the Wikipedia is something that is just generally wrong with working with humans.
My experience with the Wikipedia included being harassed white nationalists because I edited their creepy "Race and IQ" article. A very ugly experience. I did not feel supported or protected by "the wikipedia community" --
Despite this, I STILL think it's one of the best resources on the internet. That Mr. Musk wants to destroy it only makes me more confident this is correct.
-
Everything wrong with the Wikipedia is something that is just generally wrong with working with humans.
My experience with the Wikipedia included being harassed white nationalists because I edited their creepy "Race and IQ" article. A very ugly experience. I did not feel supported or protected by "the wikipedia community" --
Despite this, I STILL think it's one of the best resources on the internet. That Mr. Musk wants to destroy it only makes me more confident this is correct.
In fact, there is a lot of systemic bias in the Wikipedia. This is a reflection of systemic bias in society.
For example if you look at biographies notable men outnumber women, it's white and western dominated. The "Race and IQ" topic is still a big mess. But, you can tell from the boatload of citations and the 1GB talk page that it's a contested topic. I expect if the Wiki can endure the talk pages will be a huge resource for historians.
If we still have historians in the future.
-
In fact, there is a lot of systemic bias in the Wikipedia. This is a reflection of systemic bias in society.
For example if you look at biographies notable men outnumber women, it's white and western dominated. The "Race and IQ" topic is still a big mess. But, you can tell from the boatload of citations and the 1GB talk page that it's a contested topic. I expect if the Wiki can endure the talk pages will be a huge resource for historians.
If we still have historians in the future.
The "marketplace of ideas" is an imperfect concept that inherently magnifies oppressions. Who has the time to edit articles? What sources are reliable? Bias must exist in any attempt to describe the world. And yet, the idea that we should attempt the task together is inherently radical.
And, the idea that "everyone who can be bothered" should just hash out the definition of everything turns out to be too woke for most fascists. Even with all the built in advantages conservatives can't compete.
-
F myrmepropagandist shared this topic on
-
The "marketplace of ideas" is an imperfect concept that inherently magnifies oppressions. Who has the time to edit articles? What sources are reliable? Bias must exist in any attempt to describe the world. And yet, the idea that we should attempt the task together is inherently radical.
And, the idea that "everyone who can be bothered" should just hash out the definition of everything turns out to be too woke for most fascists. Even with all the built in advantages conservatives can't compete.
It's also why they don't like democracy. And democracy is flawed too.
But, if we can start from "everyone can edit" and "everyone should have a say" we at least have a slim chance of hearing all voices. We at least have a chance at arriving at a self-aware stance that recognizes its own shortcomings and tries to be better.
God will not come down from heaven and write a perfect encyclopedia for us. Short of that, (if you care to think such a thing is possible) this is the best we will get.
-
The "marketplace of ideas" is an imperfect concept that inherently magnifies oppressions. Who has the time to edit articles? What sources are reliable? Bias must exist in any attempt to describe the world. And yet, the idea that we should attempt the task together is inherently radical.
And, the idea that "everyone who can be bothered" should just hash out the definition of everything turns out to be too woke for most fascists. Even with all the built in advantages conservatives can't compete.
Good point. The marketplace of ideas is often dominated by - marketing, which has nothing to do with ideas.
-
The "marketplace of ideas" is an imperfect concept that inherently magnifies oppressions. Who has the time to edit articles? What sources are reliable? Bias must exist in any attempt to describe the world. And yet, the idea that we should attempt the task together is inherently radical.
And, the idea that "everyone who can be bothered" should just hash out the definition of everything turns out to be too woke for most fascists. Even with all the built in advantages conservatives can't compete.
on the “who” part, whatif… classrooms? (it’s insomnia time for me and only a partially cooked notion)
maybe we build the support you didn’t have?
materials/support for students and educators to participate in a topic like i.q. ? -
on the “who” part, whatif… classrooms? (it’s insomnia time for me and only a partially cooked notion)
maybe we build the support you didn’t have?
materials/support for students and educators to participate in a topic like i.q. ?@melioristicmarie @futurebird Having spoken to several people who did "edit Wikipedia" classroom exercises as students... not sure that's getting us where we need to go. Mostly they laugh about adding nonsense to an article and seeing how long it stayed up.
Wikipedia has several outreach throughout issues. Things like: women having article-a-thons, seeing their articles flagged for deletion before the session is even over. It's not just privilege, there are bad actors who are regular editors.
-
Everything wrong with the Wikipedia is something that is just generally wrong with working with humans.
My experience with the Wikipedia included being harassed white nationalists because I edited their creepy "Race and IQ" article. A very ugly experience. I did not feel supported or protected by "the wikipedia community" --
Despite this, I STILL think it's one of the best resources on the internet. That Mr. Musk wants to destroy it only makes me more confident this is correct.
@futurebird The math and physics pages have a different problem: they have a generally very high level of accuracy but are incomprehensibly written. If you try to write or rewrite a page along the lines of an encyclopedic but readable popular exposition, people will jump in with expert "corrections" and additions that interrupt the flow of the development and send readers down circular rabbit holes to figure out what is being said. The single-author approach of traditional encyclopedias like the Brittanica does better there, though you're subject to luck of the draw.
-
@melioristicmarie @futurebird Having spoken to several people who did "edit Wikipedia" classroom exercises as students... not sure that's getting us where we need to go. Mostly they laugh about adding nonsense to an article and seeing how long it stayed up.
Wikipedia has several outreach throughout issues. Things like: women having article-a-thons, seeing their articles flagged for deletion before the session is even over. It's not just privilege, there are bad actors who are regular editors.
@eyrea @melioristicmarie @futurebird The French Wikipedia is known for its misogynistic, racist and transphobic "guidelines".
Which is not surprising as it reflects France's treatment of its minorities.
Wikipedia's French-speaking community is torn apart over 'deadnaming' trans people
Should transgender individuals' birth names be mentioned in Wikipedia articles? And if so, under which conditions? These questions are key to an unusually intense conflict within the site's French-speaking community.
Le Monde.fr (www.lemonde.fr)
-
@eyrea @melioristicmarie @futurebird The French Wikipedia is known for its misogynistic, racist and transphobic "guidelines".
Which is not surprising as it reflects France's treatment of its minorities.
Wikipedia's French-speaking community is torn apart over 'deadnaming' trans people
Should transgender individuals' birth names be mentioned in Wikipedia articles? And if so, under which conditions? These questions are key to an unusually intense conflict within the site's French-speaking community.
Le Monde.fr (www.lemonde.fr)
@aSweetGentleman @eyrea @melioristicmarie
I don't care if they are "torn."
To be fair this could be the work of like six stubborn people. Get six more on the other side and they will lose. If I spoke French I'd jump in the fray. What BS.
-
Everything wrong with the Wikipedia is something that is just generally wrong with working with humans.
My experience with the Wikipedia included being harassed white nationalists because I edited their creepy "Race and IQ" article. A very ugly experience. I did not feel supported or protected by "the wikipedia community" --
Despite this, I STILL think it's one of the best resources on the internet. That Mr. Musk wants to destroy it only makes me more confident this is correct.
@futurebird Where did you edit the "Race and IQ" article, and what was the response? I can't find it in the article history
-
@futurebird Where did you edit the "Race and IQ" article, and what was the response? I can't find it in the article history
This was years ago, you'd need to go pretty deep in the history to find my edits.
-
This was years ago, you'd need to go pretty deep in the history to find my edits.
@futurebird I do think, though, that we made progress over the last years, also regarding discussion culture. I know Wikipedia as a overwhelmingly progressive place. That can be quite different with such honeypot articles, and yes, those are often a problem. And yes, we have many problems, but no obvious solutions to them, unfortunately.
