The very idea of Wikipedia implies it shall be internally--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
contradictory, by design. In different articles, some event
or person might be covered with different assessments. There
also might be notable discrepancies between versions of the
same article in different languages. Discordance is natural
when content is created with the participation of various
and many enthusiasts/activists, whose experiences, cultural
backgrounds and perspectives differ. Guidelines to cite and
refer to reputable / neutral sources surely serve to ennoble
it, but it cannot eliminate discrepancies, because sources
seeming reputable for some groups of Wikipedia enthusiasts
may not seem so for other groups. Such an internally
controversial product nevertheless might have value as sort
of great exhibition of existing - accepted or suggested -
facts, beliefs and narratives, and diversity of views and
stands even contributes to popularity. But, it's definitely
not fit to be "a judge" in disputes or a fact-checking tool.
Moreover, the above is written in the idealistic assumption
that the Wikipedia content is created by honest, sincere and
selfless enthusiasts. In real life, as soon as something
enthusiasm-driven becomes popular, there are powers seeking
to adapt it for serving their particular interest. Wikipedia
was not an exception. Still, for pretty big number of topics
it remains to be a useful source of information. However, it
has become increasingly biased and unreliable, even fiction-
bearing when it comes to *sensitive topics, somehow related
to cultist and political indoctrination, to various kinds of
present and past conflicts.
<https://archive.is/Sjk8B> unherd.com
There's one crisis that cannot be messaged away, and that is
a marked decline in traffic to Wikipedia.org. If sustained,
this will mark the site's demise .. Human traffic to the site
had decreased by 8% over the past few months. That is a
staggering number .. In the span of little more than two
years, the percentage of survey respondents who use Wikipedia
to fact-check something dropped from around 55% to less than
40%. The number of people who use the site to keep themselves
informed dropped from over 50% to around 35%; those using the
site to learn about current events went from more than 30% to
less than 20% ..
"Encyclosphere" is fracturing. From an idea market dominated
by a single giant player, new sources of topic-based
information are emerging online. As Wikipedia continues to
dig into its "trust" narrative, what it doesn't realise is
that so much of that trust has already been eroded ..
...
Indeed, the Wikipedia has not passed the test for accuracy and
neutrality etc, and it's sort of warning sign for those who are
seeking to promote something 'universal', - it may require much
higher information/ethical/etc standards as well as much deeper
detachment from misc passions/beliefs than you can imagine.
The very idea of Wikipedia implies it shall be internally
contradictory, by design. In different articles, some event
or person might be covered with different assessments. There
also might be notable discrepancies between versions of the
same article in different languages. Discordance is natural
when content is created with the participation of various
and many enthusiasts/activists, whose experiences, cultural
backgrounds and perspectives differ. Guidelines to cite and
refer to reputable / neutral sources surely serve to ennoble
it, but it cannot eliminate discrepancies, because sources
seeming reputable for some groups of Wikipedia enthusiasts
may not seem so for other groups. Such an internally
controversial product nevertheless might have value as sort
of great exhibition of existing - accepted or suggested -
facts, beliefs and narratives, and diversity of views and
stands even contributes to popularity. But, it's definitely
not fit to be "a judge" in disputes or a fact-checking tool.
Moreover, the above is written in the idealistic assumption
that the Wikipedia content is created by honest, sincere and
selfless enthusiasts. In real life, as soon as something
enthusiasm-driven becomes popular, there are powers seeking
to adapt it for serving their particular interest. Wikipedia
was not an exception. Still, for pretty big number of topics
it remains to be a useful source of information. However, it
has become increasingly biased and unreliable, even fiction-
bearing when it comes to *sensitive topics, somehow related
to cultist and political indoctrination, to various kinds of
present and past conflicts.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 18:06:29 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,416 |
| Posted today: | 1 |