Blatant falsehoods on Wikipedia

[Sailor.X]

I am posting this thread because of some issue I have been having for the past week now. While I was on Wikipedia I looked up a page on one of the boats I was a crewman on. The YTB 803. 90% of the information on the page was flat out wrong. They said the boat spent it's entire career in San Francisco. Which is false because it spent it's entire service life with the US Navy at Navsta Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba Puerto Rico. So I got a Wikipedia account and corrected the record. A few days later some fuck head changed it back. So I edited it again. Then they changed it back. So I posted an objection to their corrections pointing out I was an actual crewman on that boat and know the whole history of that boat. I even posted a picture of the boat I took myself as proof. I did some further research and found that on the page of the company that currently own the 803 they incorrectly stated where they got the 803 and it's whole history. This was also parroted by every other site that mentioned my old boat. A lie has spread all over the internet and no one is doing a basic fact check of contacting 4th Fleet to get the real information.

I also did some more looking at other wikipedia articles on other subjects and are seeing this pattern elsewhere. Something needs to be done. We can't have a site spread lies like they are the truth. To be honest one of the reasons I am so passionate about this issue is the fact a good friend of mine died on the 803. One of my mentors EN1 Stevens died during a transit of the 803 from the Charleston Naval Shipyard to Roosevelt Roads. Them saying the 803 was never stationed at Roosevelt Roads is spitting at the memory of a great man. And I won't stand for it. Have any of you found any falsehoods yourself on Wikipedia?

 

[Deleted member]

“The standard of evidence on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth” is explicitly their policy.

 

[MrBirthday]

“The standard of evidence on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth” is explicitly their policy.

That, and from what I gather, even if you have direct evidence of their "reliable sources" being flat-out wrong, your evidence will be ignored in favor of said "reliable sources".

A lie has spread all over the internet and no one is doing a basic fact check of contacting 4th Fleet to get the real information.

Have you contacted them about it? 4th Fleet, I mean.

 

[Deleted member]

That, and from what I gather, even if you have direct evidence of their "reliable sources" being flat-out wrong, your evidence will be ignored in favor of said "reliable sources".

Correct, you would need your own reliable source, for example, a veterans' club containing contrary information on their website could be cited in the article, but not your personal experience!

 

[*THASF*]

Their rule is that editors cannot also be primary sources (“original research”) because they don’t want people engaging in self-promotion or using Wikipedia to host their biographies. This gets ridiculous when their articles are full of bullshit that needs correcting from an authoritative source, but that source isn’t published elsewhere. You should blog about your experiences on the 803 in great detail on Medium or something, and then refer the editors to it.

 

[Terthna]

Back during Gamergate, I learned a lot about what goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia. Basically, there are a number of people on that site who's entire lives revolve around it; and they are diligent in making sure that the information people see on it reflects their personal biases. Even when you cite information that meets their requirements of "verifiability", if they don't like what it says these people will simply keep deleting every edit you make until you eventually give up because, unlike them, you have a life outside of editing Wikipedia. Even if you keep at it, eventually you'll attract the attention of the rest of the site, who will almost always support the actions of the guy with the most seniority; namely, the one who treats the site like their own personal propaganda machine.

 

[Sailor.X]

That, and from what I gather, even if you have direct evidence of their "reliable sources" being flat-out wrong, your evidence will be ignored in favor of said "reliable sources".


Have you contacted them about it? 4th Fleet, I mean.

I will on either tomorrow or Thursday.

 

[Deleted member]

I remember one time I tried to edit a Wikipedia article about the fighting the Donbass to incorporate the technically correct military term used in all military literature for what was going on--Salient. I was repeatedly back-edited and then insulted for using "complicated" and "rare" words, despite all the references I could provide that met their requirements. But it was the Debaltseve Salient, and Wikipedia's editors can't change the truth. It was ridiculous, and I never edited a wikipedia article again.

 

[MrBirthday]

Back during Gamergate, I learned a lot about what goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia.

Yeah, I remember the info that was shared, too. My immediate thought upon reading it was "what a way to run a railroad".

 

[Deleted member]

Yeah, I remember the info that was shared, too. My immediate thought upon reading it was "what a way to run a railroad".

If the name of the game is railroading, by Jove, that is exactly how you do it!

 

[MrBirthday]

If the name of the game is railroading, why, that is exactly how you do it!

Are you riffing on what I said, or have you actually never heard of that expression?

 

[Deleted member]

Are you riffing on what I said, or have you actually never heard of that expression?

I am very much riffing on what you said.

 

[MrBirthday]

I am very much riffing on what you said.

I thought so, but this being the internet, I couldn't just assume that was the case.

 

[Deleted member]

I changed “why” to “by Jove” to make this clearer, now... grins

 

[Erwin_Pommel]

Not sure if their page says so, but I remember one of the Wikipedia founders or something saying that Bitchute as a site was nothing more than an "alt-right" platform based on a single encounter with the recommended channels he got on a brief look, coincidentally he never explained who these channels were so that puts it into the air if they were legitimate far-right channels or not. He then got rightfully called out on his shitty standards of classification as a single list of recommended channels for a new user doesn't really mean anything in the grand scale of things. I've also noted quite a few pages on political figures of a right-wing nature tend to have The Guardian or other heavily left-leaning outlets being listed as on of their many sources as to why they listed them as they've listed them. Which is slightly suspicious all things considered given their known reputation for spinning or outright fabricating so-called "truths."

Not sure about the details on any specific page though, mostly working off of trends I have seen while occasionally looking around.

 

[Deleted member]

That wikipedia has a left-wing bias is unambiguous. Ironically the science articles are the best ones, despite how much the sciences push you to not use Wikipedia as a reference.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

despite how much the sciences push you to not use Wikipedia as a reference.

eh, I've been advised to use Wikipedia's SOURCES before.

Sure, you don't CITE the place, that would be dumb, but their articles are pretty well bibliographed so if you see something you like you can usually get a hold of the source Or just paraphrase that bit from the article and cite the same source Wikipedia cited.

That said, is Wikipedia's articles of Trans People and Man and Woman still contradictory?

 

[Battlegrinder]

In general, wikipedia's problem is that it's list of priorities is:

1. Adhere to wikipedia's byzantine rules for notability, verification, BLP, etc, etc, etc.
2. Handle all disputes regarding the above via wikipedia's equally byzantine dispute resolution procedures, most of which run the gamut between "useless" and "openly corrupt".
3. Do all of the above in a way that doesn't get the foundation sued or generate bad PR.
4. Be truthful and accurate.


Given that, it's less of a surprise that many articles are flawed/out and out BS, and more of a shock that most of them aren't.

 

[Deleted member]

In general, wikipedia's problem is that it's list of priorities is:

1. Adhere to wikipedia's byzantine rules for notability, verification, BLP, etc, etc, etc.
2. Handle all disputes regarding the above via wikipedia's equally byzantine dispute resolution procedures, most of which run the gamut between "useless" and "openly corrupt".
3. Do all of the above in a way that doesn't get the foundation sued or generate bad PR.
4. Be truthful and accurate.


Given that, it's less of a surprise that many articles are flawed/out and out BS, and more of a shock that most of them aren't.

I would mostly ascribe that to Wikipedia being so large that the staff cannot actually successfully ruin it as that would require an impossible level of effort from them.

 

[Flintsteel]

In general, wikipedia's problem is that it's list of priorities is:

1. Adhere to wikipedia's byzantine rules for notability, verification, BLP, etc, etc, etc.
2. Handle all disputes regarding the above via wikipedia's equally byzantine dispute resolution procedures, most of which run the gamut between "useless" and "openly corrupt".
3. Do all of the above in a way that doesn't get the foundation sued or generate bad PR.
4. Be truthful and accurate.


Given that, it's less of a surprise that many articles are flawed/out and out BS, and more of a shock that most of them aren't.

You forgot #5: Wonder why we can't get new editors to join.