This is bad. They’re trying to rewrite history based on what racist and sexist morons feel is true
What if it was the Church of Wikipedia?
Sure, I will join and I will go to that church every Sunday, unless there is a game on.
Nineteen Eighty Four was a good year, although I was only a toddler then. The year after that is when Super Mario Brothers came out. Super Mario Brothers is a fun game. So many people love this game. Mario and Luigi are both great to play. Most people end up playing Mario. How many people want to play Luigi nowadays? Mario is fun, but we should remember Luigi too.
That seems stupid and I don’t even mean in a public policy way. It’s stupid in that way too but I mean individuals, companies, and maybe even a few governments are willing to take a bullet for Wikipedia. There’s people who wear cloaks and call other people “Mere Mortal” who are passionate about Wikipedia.
If they go ahead and actually succeed, the only thing that’ll happen is that they’ll just move to a different country.
Only to rearm and write down their heroic tales. They’ll be back.
I think they should. Wikipedia deserves to be based out of a country that supports the free flow of information. that is not the US.
The systemic toxicity issues in Wikipedia, many of which aren’t even remotely related to Israel-Palestinian conflict, are increasingly looking like their Achilles heels.
Do you have a reliable source or examples for this toxicity, or is not being able to spread misinformation due to the rule of sourcing your claims the toxicity you’re alluding to? No human structure will ever be perfect, but Wikipedia is a whole lot more credible than the organization that’s currently threatening them, and the wackos celebrating it.
Edit: Out of curiosity, I’ve even given you the benefit of a doubt and looked through your reddit link you provided to someone else. Some of the examples provided there I have even heard of like the resulting AARoads wiki and the “definition of recession” controversy, but it does seem overshadowed by a mountain of spurious sources and examples.
I see references to bad moderation, and examples of incidents, some verifiable. This isn’t surprising, nor would I try to dispute it.
I see claims of manipulation of the rules, that there are people who try to goad others into enforcement traps. And while there’s no solid evidence, I don’t doubt that.
What I’m not seeing is any suggestion of a solution. Wikipedia has a slew of rigorous mechanisms to allow for community moderation, resolution/stoppage of edit wars, and well documented escalation paths. It has flaws, and it is a work of volunteers with inherent biases, hence the systems to address them. Instead of curating a list of deficiencies, it may be more effective to start building a list of potential solutions to the deficiencies at hand. If you were to take the existing model of Wikipedia, it’s rules, it’s moderation… What would you change to improve it? And more importantly, how?
Please feel free to read this Reddit page which collects or summarizes a list of scandals and issues on Wikipedia.
Ah, you replied while I was reading and writing my edit. It works better as a reply here.
Out of curiosity, I’ve even given you the benefit of a doubt and looked through your reddit link you provided to someone else. Some of the examples provided there I have even heard of like the resulting AARoads wiki and the “definition of recession” controversy, but it does seem overshadowed by a mountain of spurious sources and examples.
I see references to bad moderation, and examples of incidents, some verifiable. This isn’t surprising, nor would I try to dispute it.
I see claims of manipulation of the rules, that there are people who try to goad others into enforcement traps. And while there’s no solid evidence, I don’t doubt that.
What I’m not seeing is any suggestion of a solution. Wikipedia has a slew of rigorous mechanisms to allow for community moderation, resolution/stoppage of edit wars, and well documented escalation paths. It has flaws, and it is a work of volunteers with inherent biases, hence the systems to address them. Instead of curating a list of deficiencies, it may be more effective to start building a list of potential solutions to the deficiencies at hand. If you were to take the existing model of Wikipedia, it’s rules, it’s moderation… What would you change to improve it? And more importantly, how?
What I’m not seeing is any suggestion of a solution. Wikipedia has a slew of rigorous mechanisms to allow for community moderation, resolution/stoppage of edit wars, and well documented escalation paths. It has flaws, and it is a work of volunteers with inherent biases, hence the systems to address them. Instead of curating a list of deficiencies, it may be more effective to start building a list of potential solutions to the deficiencies at hand. If you were to take the existing model of Wikipedia, it’s rules, it’s moderation… What would you change to improve it? And more importantly, how?
Good question. One good approach would be to create as many Wikipedia alternatives as you can, which is actually doable through newly released ibis.wiki. There’s also Encycla, Justapedia and Namu.wiki to pick from, although because of Google is putting it high up in their search results, almost all earlier alternatives failed to get off the ground and gather enough momentum.
Cory Doctorow’s theory of enshittification can be applied to this one. According to him there are four constraints that prevent enshittification: competition, regulation, self-help and labor. Normally the first and the third one would be sufficient but as I see that Wikipedia has entered a terminal phase with those sexual scandals and so on, which would cause the Internet to turn against Wikipedia overnight, all the constraints would therefore have to be activated in this case. A likely result would entail Wikipedia liquidating and getting absorbed into more better, successor encyclopedic organizations, like how the League of Nations folded into the United Nations at the end of WWII.
what a weird, out-of-pocket thing to say
Here, truth is the enemy.
