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.
-
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.
-
S suneauken@mastodon.world shared this topic
