Wikipedia being under the control of an ideology would probably improve it, since that would mean an effort to keep things up to date and maintain focus and consistent tone across the site.
Blatant falsehoods on Wikipedia
- Thread starter Sailor.X
- Start date
Wikipedia being under the control of an ideology would probably improve it, since that would mean an effort to keep things up to date and maintain focus and consistent tone across the site.
Chaos Marine
Well-known member
I remember that. It boggles the mind how Encyclopedia Dramatica is vastly more accurate and doesn't actually take what the three unholy trinity of female grifters (you all know who they are) said as factual information.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member
Guest
It's really hard to tell if Jimbo is a leftist or a libertarian, but he's clearly not a left-libertarian. I think to some extent Wikipedia editing is its own subculture.
Francis Urquhart
Well-known member
I would use the term "cult" rather than subculture. It's exclusive rather than inclusive and its governed by a set of rules that are bizarrely complicated and whose interpretation changes every time its convenient. It also has the typical cult structure of a series of rings wherein promotion from one to the next depends on unquestioning acceptance of the cultist mandates, written and unwritten. .
Francis Urquhart
Well-known member
Yeah well you know this means war.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Look what I found on Wikipedia's "Oligarchy" page, when searching for the right term for a particular form of authoritarian government:
Interesting how they associate "Republicans" having any sort of power whatsoever with an oligarchy, isn't it? It's almost like they're trying to plant the idea in our heads that the Democrats having all the power somehow isn't one.
Feel free to correct it. Let's see how fast they change it back.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Even if Wikipedia doesn't have an ideological agenda, its rules allow the side that screams the most to give it an ideological agenda, because you can "verify" your assertions by linking to the rants of your own side.
Francis Urquhart
Well-known member
I'd suggest this is a problem with the "sources" style of debate which eventually boils down to "my cherry-picked source vs your cherry-picked source". At best. I would say in a majority of cases, the quoted "source" does not support for the assertion being made and may have nothing to do with it. I'm lucky, I have minions who I can send to look up sources and find out if they say what the person quoting them says they say.
Perhaps the funniest one was a naziphile who was claiming that Nazi Germany would have won the war because the USA was going bankrupt in 1945. He quoted a US Treasury document to "prove" it. It too one of my minions less than five minutes to find the original document and reading it showed that it related to a routine financial transfer converting short-term debt into long-term debt. it had nothing to do with the war effort at all.
Another problem with Wikipedia "sources" is that they exclude primary source data. This is insane; primary sources are golden. Instead, Wikipedia only allows secondary sources which induces a mass of potential error right there.
D
Deleted member
Guest
The reasons for the no-primary-source policy remain dubious at best with an inadequate explanation. This is precisely why I call this a discussion forum and we don't require people to provide sources--it's actively useless to promoting any real conversation, learning, or understanding about any issue. If someone's argument is wrong, you'll need your own sources to refer to so you can address that, but what sources they used aren't important. If you agree with them, you probably don't need sources. if you're uncertain and really invested, then you're prompted to do your own research--and that's the best outcome of all.
Francis Urquhart
Well-known member
Amen to that!!!!!!!
That's the problem with source-based arguments. All they do is repeat the past, they never go anywhere new.
Yep I have now been using other sites to get the hard data. Mostly long form raw data sites. Which I suspect the Wiki editors don't even go to. If they did they would know the Green Anaconda grows larger than 17ft. Which is what they say the maximum size for that snake is.
Francis Urquhart
Well-known member
Perhaps we ought to feed a Wiki Editor to a 22-foot Green Anaconda and hear him claiming that it couldn't be happening because Wikipedia says 17 feet is the max.
I would view that as the biggest issue, actually. I've seen a lot of cases of people making bullshit claims to rile up thier own side, counting on the fact that people who agree with then won't fact check what they're saying.
D
Deleted member
Guest
@Battlegrinder I concede the issue.
<deleted content> my feel of Astronautix is that it posts contradictory information from multiple sources without fact checking.
<deleted content> my feel of Astronautix is that it posts contradictory information from multiple sources without fact checking.
D
Deleted member
Guest
<deleted content>Do you think he is extrapolating from any rational basis, like comparisons with possible examples for life extension, or simply creating the numbers out of thin air?
MrBirthday
Agent of Catgirl Genocide
I know it's been a long while, but has anything new happened on that front?Well I heard back from the Wikipedia Mafia. They said a photo of the YTB 803 in St Thomas US Virgin Islands is not proof it was not stationed in San Francisco it's whole service life. Yeah well you know this means war.
Still waiting to myself. I already reported it to the media. But as you know with the news cycle for the past few months.............. They had other juicy topics to cover.