Should we split Wikipedia?

[RisingThumb]

what is the difference if ANYONE could (do the same)?

You can tear pages out of one and put them in straws to roleplay tribals in your classes. Unfortunately the only thing you get if you tear the other is computer sparks, smoke, and sent to the principal's office.

 

[Some_porcupine]

You can tear pages out of one and put them in straws to roleplay tribals in your classes. Unfortunately the only thing you get if you tear the other is computer sparks, smoke, and sent to the principal's office.

no, the economic incentive
also, can you (c) facts, even if the (c) expired?

 

[Voicedrew]

Personally, for objective research I use Rationalwiki and Conservapedia

https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_morality#New_Atheism_and_objective_morality

Classic atheists from the mid-20th century were very reluctant to grant that there was an objective moral law because they saw that it was just too compelling for believers to take the easy step from the moral law to God who was the "moral law giver."

Just read this and was like, me frfr

 

[CognacDefender]

There was a tranny who got access to the article for women and changed the picture to another tranny, by the by.

 

[power gem]

There was a tranny who got access to the article for women and changed the picture to another tranny, by the by.

the image on the "woman" article and the massive argument about it is a great example of everything that's wrong with wikipedia. for reference, this is the current image:

yes, the picture they have chosen to represent all of womankind is this completely generic vacation photo of a nondescript middle aged woman. the original photo was uploaded to flickr by her husband in 2020 and since that time it has accrued only 2.5k views. but the photographer released it under a creative commons license, which means that unlike most photos, it can be used freely on wikipedia. so someone uploaded it (and photoshopped her shirt to be a different colour for some reason) and now this random woman who just wanted her husband to take a pic for her linkedin profile represents Woman to 80,000 people a month, without her knowledge or consent.

i think it's hilarious that they chose such a mediocre photo, but if you think about it, wikipedia's consensus system means it couldn't have ended up any other way. if you used a photo of a noticeably attractive woman, you would be "reinforcing toxic beauty standards". if you used a photo of a woman engaging in any sort of activity, you would be accused of making value judgments on women's behaviour (a photo of a woman doing agricultural work in a rural village - are you saying that women aren't valid unless they're primitive earth goddesses in touch with nature? a photo of a woman in an office - are you saying that women aren't valid unless they're girlbosses with email jobs?) any depiction of women in art is right out, because it's unrealistic and was probably painted by a man anyway. can't use an anatomical diagram because a certain contingent would object to it. there was an incredibly lengthy debate about this on the talk page. in reality the article doesn't need a lead image because we're not aliens and all of us (ok most of us) know what a woman is. but wikipedia wouldn't be wikipedia without endless tedious debates about shit that doesn't matter. i will say that the current image is an improvement over the last one which was some staged rosie the riveter type thing. it would have been funny if they went with option P.

 

[Deleted member 1982]

I will just keep this short. There have been concerns about alleged biases in Wikipedia articles, especially on those connected to sensitive matters. Even worse, attempts to correct them have often been met with resistance from the moderators. However Wikipedia itself still remains the only place on the internet where one can freely and conveniently access knowledge of any subject with relative ease. So my suggestion is that instead of getting rid of Wikipedia altogether, should we just grab a section and spin it off into another project or something?

Should have been done years ago. And yes rampant woke and globohomo bias on every article. Also the articles are full of opinions and politics. Nofap is a good example its according to wikipedia pseudoscience and rightwing initiation, same as any article pertaining to occultism, royal arts, men issues, scientists and philosophers that aren't pozzed or lefties etc.

Also, you know an article is shit when the editing function is locked. Not to prevent "vandalism" but to prevent people from removing biases and insults and to add clarification

 

[レオタルドのフェティッシュ]

Personally, for objective research I use Rationalwiki and Conservapedia

rationalwiki is full of atheist propaganda, and the other is just jewish shill amplifier

tbh i don't expect this much responses and i am too overwhelmed to read and acknowledge every single one of them, but many of you have described the problem better than i do. it is mainly the widespread "political correctness" issue that i want to address. as we've already known this isn't only limited to wikipedia, but have in fact been observed in many big name organizations. in the last five years there has been an unprecedented increase in crackdown aimed towards common knowledge in order to conform more into a widely promoted narrative we are put up with. just before trump became president, i remember back when wikipedia and google wouldn't suppress pieces of information that now would've been viewed as right-wing/dissident in perspective. but what can i do? i'm just a small person, and i think complaining would at least ease it up a bit.

 

[Deleted member 1982]

rationalwiki is full of atheist propaganda, and the other is just jewish shill amplifier

Conservatives really love sucking jewish cock, its hysterical. They are the most goodest of the goyim.

 

[RisingThumb]

One of the cofounders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, has personally decried Wikipedia as biased. He provides a lot of good examples of how the original Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia has fallen apart.

 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

Has there ever been any solid numbers confirming how many of Wikipedia's editors are backed by PR firms and intelligence agencies?

This bot used to be a fun way to track shill edits but it appears to be dead at the moment.

 

[alix (dead account)]

One of the cofounders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, has personally decried Wikipedia as biased. He provides a lot of good examples of how the original Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia has fallen apart.

Probavly one of the best articles I have ever seen about this theme.

Should we split Wikipedia? As small open encyclopedias for specific themes (science, politics, music), yes. As a big, open alternative to Wikipedia? No. It wouldn't work, because Wikipedia already has the monopoly on science, music, art (and any non-political themes). A new alternative, unless a miracle happens and a group of people create a truly non-biased encyclopedia, would end up having a bias, either right-wing or left-wing.
The only solution that exists is simple: use more than just Wikipedia. Whether it is other kind of encyclopedias (like @RisingThumb 's Encyclopedia Britannica) or another kind of sources (especialized books and encyclopedias, sources with different points of view, etcetera). But at the end it all comes down to that simple and timeless solution.

 

[Some_porcupine]

Probavly one of the best articles I have ever seen about this theme.

Should we split Wikipedia? As small open encyclopedias for specific themes (science, politics, music), yes. As a big, open alternative to Wikipedia? No. It wouldn't work, because Wikipedia already has the monopoly on science, music, art (and any non-political themes). A new alternative, unless a miracle happens and a group of people create a truly non-biased encyclopedia, would end up having a bias, either right-wing or left-wing.
The only solution that exists is simple: use more than just Wikipedia. Whether it is other kind of encyclopedias (like @RisingThumb 's Encyclopedia Britannica) or another kind of sources (especialized books and encyclopedias, sources with different points of view, etcetera). But at the end it all comes down to that simple and timeless solution.

but if times comes all narrative is controlled, everywhere, all scopes - then what?
lit. 1984 or BNW???
then??

 

[alix (dead account)]

but if times comes all narrative is controlled, everywhere, all scopes - then what?
lit. 1984 or BNW???
then??

We then move to North Sentinelese Island.

Being serious, the solution to this is making the change you want to see. Edit Wikipedia, use it less, and promote using other sources. One step can start a whole march. That's my philosophy

 

[Pangolin]

When I want to know more on a particular subject wikipedia is the starting point, but it also shouldn't be the ending point. Its an opinion based website, and just a datapoint among many other wikias. Its importance in the real world is often overemphasized but they really shouldn't be taken anymore serious than a rando's information.

 

[dreamsphere]

This is why maintaining a personal wiki is paramount. Not that you can compete with Wikipedia, but so that you have legitimate information when inevitably the "information" changes.

If only for your own sanity and ability to survive in the future.

There are many sites that are no longer active and aren't archived that I wish I had saved a decade or more ago. I wish I had that information always accessible in text format for posterity.

 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

Just found this today, it's a whole forum dedicated to Wikipedia criticism and infighting run by disgruntled and banned users. Some pretty wild and at times hilarious stuff documented on here. Overall a legitimately good resource for anyone looking into specific instances of PR firm/glowie backed wiki article manipulation.

They even have the exact same thread as we have going here lul. Interesting reading their perspective.

 

[RisingThumb]

@レオタルドのフェティッシュ are you from that wikipediasucks forum? Is this a psyop or an anti-wikipedia army recruitment scheme?

 

[Jade]

rationalwiki is full of atheist propaganda, and the other is just jewish shill amplifier

tbh i don't expect this much responses and i am too overwhelmed to read and acknowledge every single one of them, but many of you have described the problem better than i do. it is mainly the widespread "political correctness" issue that i want to address. as we've already known this isn't only limited to wikipedia, but have in fact been observed in many big name organizations. in the last five years there has been an unprecedented increase in crackdown aimed towards common knowledge in order to conform more into a widely promoted narrative we are put up with. just before trump became president, i remember back when wikipedia and google wouldn't suppress pieces of information that now would've been viewed as right-wing/dissident in perspective. but what can i do? i'm just a small person, and i think complaining would at least ease it up a bit.

People involved with the media and the flow of information, are so narcissistic and stuck-up that they actually think (or thought) that they had total control over what the average person believed, and that they could manipulate their every action. Then Trump ran for president, they threw everything they had at him, and failed. The significance of that to them can't be overstated. I remember just before election night, there were articles being put out by journalists scolding other journalists, saying that 'yes of course Clinton is gonna win, because we're backing her, but shame on all of you for 'letting' things get to this point, that Trump is even a contender for president'.

Trump proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the media DID NOT have control over what the common man thinks, that they WEREN'T able to influence their actions. You can see the effects of this even with absolute nobodies in the realm of media like Nostalgia Critic - When Zootopia came out, he made a video on it where he said that he personally is tired of 'women power' morals in film, but that it's apparently still necessary because 'Trump was still in the lead', and, I quote 'I don't know where all these people [voting for him] are coming from! They're crawling out of caves in the ground!'

This is also why Gamergate became such a huge thing and why the media seethed about it for so long - people rejected their narrative on such a large scale that they couldn't ignore it or dismiss it. It popped the echo chamber bubble they had crafted for themselves where they are the masters and the world their puppets. But Gamergate was confined to the specific realm of games journalism, populated by the rejects from the entire industry, whereas Trump defied the most powerful media figures in the world and got away with it.

And this is why there's been such an immense crackdown on all forms of dissident information by the tech giants and the media. Where once they could shrug it off because they were completely self-assured that they were utterly in control, now that safety net of absolute confidence they had is gone. This is why they're still obsessed with Trump to the point of holding a pointless impeachment trial and trying to send him to prison even though that wouldn't really do anything. Assuming current global society even lasts that long, I guarantee you we'll still be hearing about Trump DECADES down the line.

And, for that matter, this is why Hitler also remains such a boogeyman - the people in power don't care one bit about any war crimes or authoritarianism, they're far worse than he ever was in that regard. The actual reason is because they believed that they had absolute control over the masses, what they believed, and how they lived their lives, and Hitler not only proved them wrong on a continent-crushing scale, he nearly brought down their entire power structure almost single-handedly. From those days on there's been a certain amount of paranoia on their part, and it's why the holocaust keeps getting touted as 'the worst event in history', Hitler as 'the most evil man in history', why the phrase 'never again' is emphasized so heavily in German schools, etc.

Spoiler: A:TLA spoilers

Pop cultural references in this context are pretty lame, but I do think Azula's arc in A:TLA is a great example of this sort of mentality. She was so confident that she knew everything and could manipulate anyone and everyone she wanted - only to first be shocked when Zuko turned his back on the Fire Nation, and then have her worldview utterly destroyed after Mai and Tai Lee turned on her to save him. The last few episodes of the show have her becoming increasingly paranoid and schizophrenic, banishing people left and right because she doesn't have that absolute confidence anymore, and genuinely can't tell anymore if someone just made a mistake, or if they're secretly conspiring against her.

 

[Some_porcupine]

People involved with the media and the flow of information, are so narcissistic and stuck-up that they actually think (or thought) that they had total control over what the average person believed, and that they could manipulate their every action. Then Trump ran for president, they threw everything they had at him, and failed. The significance of that to them can't be overstated. I remember just before election night, there were articles being put out by journalists scolding other journalists, saying that 'yes of course Clinton is gonna win, because we're backing her, but shame on all of you for 'letting' things get to this point, that Trump is even a contender for president'.

Trump proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the media DID NOT have control over what the common man thinks, that they WEREN'T able to influence their actions. You can see the effects of this even with absolute nobodies in the realm of media like Nostalgia Critic - When Zootopia came out, he made a video on it where he said that he personally is tired of 'women power' morals in film, but that it's apparently still necessary because 'Trump was still in the lead', and, I quote 'I don't know where all these people [voting for him] are coming from! They're crawling out of caves in the ground!'

This is also why Gamergate became such a huge thing and why the media seethed about it for so long - people rejected their narrative on such a large scale that they couldn't ignore it or dismiss it. It popped the echo chamber bubble they had crafted for themselves where they are the masters and the world their puppets. But Gamergate was confined to the specific realm of games journalism, populated by the rejects from the entire industry, whereas Trump defied the most powerful media figures in the world and got away with it.

And this is why there's been such an immense crackdown on all forms of dissident information by the tech giants and the media. Where once they could shrug it off because they were completely self-assured that they were utterly in control, now that safety net of absolute confidence they had is gone. This is why they're still obsessed with Trump to the point of holding a pointless impeachment trial and trying to send him to prison even though that wouldn't really do anything. Assuming current global society even lasts that long, I guarantee you we'll still be hearing about Trump DECADES down the line.

And, for that matter, this is why Hitler also remains such a boogeyman - the people in power don't care one bit about any war crimes or authoritarianism, they're far worse than he ever was in that regard. The actual reason is because they believed that they had absolute control over the masses, what they believed, and how they lived their lives, and Hitler not only proved them wrong on a continent-crushing scale, he nearly brought down their entire power structure almost single-handedly. From those days on there's been a certain amount of paranoia on their part, and it's why the holocaust keeps getting touted as 'the worst event in history', Hitler as 'the most evil man in history', why the phrase 'never again' is emphasized so heavily in German schools, etc.

Yes or no? I dont understand what you want to say

 

[bnuungus]

just tell the normies that google scholar exists and that they can do their research there