Taylan (Male Feminist Arc) on Nostr: This is the problem with #Wikipedia. It makes a factual claim, because a source ...
This is the problem with #Wikipedia.
It makes a factual claim, because a source deemed "reputable" says so.
Then, someone in the talk page straight up proves it to be wrong. And what happens?
Editor says "your proof is convincing, but it's original research, therefore we cannot use it."
And the falsehood remains on Wikipedia for 7 more years after that; still counting.
(It's not seen in the screenshot, but I've checked in the history; the proof was posted in 2018.)
Sure, just an obscure topic in this case; who cares who coined the term "open source" anyway.
But what do you do when "reputable" media publishes falsehoods on more important topics? It's not like this doesn't happen.
Wikipedians could defend themselves by saying "it's the media's fault; we merely sum up the information that comes from them." But that's a shitty defense.
You've set up your rules so that STRAIGHT UP PROVING something to be wrong doesn't count on your website. AND these potentially false (even KNOWN to be false) claims are made in a factual, encyclopedic tone.
Worse yet, you curate a list of outlets in your rule book that are considered reputable or not, based on guess what. The original research of Wikipedians.
Either use more honest wording, saying "media outlet X claims..." or allow original research to count for *something*.
The way Wikipedia is structured right now, it often just functions as a propaganda machine: Declare certain people and organizations to be authority, and repeat their claims in a factual, seemingly objective tone, pretending like it's proven facts, even if the opposite is the case.
There's actually a rule on Wikipedia saying "use common sense" but I guess nobody cares about it.
It makes a factual claim, because a source deemed "reputable" says so.
Then, someone in the talk page straight up proves it to be wrong. And what happens?
Editor says "your proof is convincing, but it's original research, therefore we cannot use it."
And the falsehood remains on Wikipedia for 7 more years after that; still counting.
(It's not seen in the screenshot, but I've checked in the history; the proof was posted in 2018.)
Sure, just an obscure topic in this case; who cares who coined the term "open source" anyway.
But what do you do when "reputable" media publishes falsehoods on more important topics? It's not like this doesn't happen.
Wikipedians could defend themselves by saying "it's the media's fault; we merely sum up the information that comes from them." But that's a shitty defense.
You've set up your rules so that STRAIGHT UP PROVING something to be wrong doesn't count on your website. AND these potentially false (even KNOWN to be false) claims are made in a factual, encyclopedic tone.
Worse yet, you curate a list of outlets in your rule book that are considered reputable or not, based on guess what. The original research of Wikipedians.
Either use more honest wording, saying "media outlet X claims..." or allow original research to count for *something*.
The way Wikipedia is structured right now, it often just functions as a propaganda machine: Declare certain people and organizations to be authority, and repeat their claims in a factual, seemingly objective tone, pretending like it's proven facts, even if the opposite is the case.
There's actually a rule on Wikipedia saying "use common sense" but I guess nobody cares about it.