TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet’s biggest flaws

265 点作者 The_ed17超过 8 年前

40 条评论

stcredzero超过 8 年前
<i>We might once have dreamed that the miracle of cheap, instant communication would knit society together. The reality has been closer to the opposite.</i><p>Once again, Douglas Adams turns out to be prophetic.<p><i>&quot;Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.&quot;</i><p>In the sentence before, he also predicted his friend Richard Dawkins&#x27; books:<p><i>&quot;Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo&#x27;s kidneys, but that didn&#x27;t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the theme of his best-selling book, Well That About wraps It Up For God.</i><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;hitchhikers.wikia.com&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Babel_Fish" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;hitchhikers.wikia.com&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Babel_Fish</a>
评论 #12790796 未加载
评论 #12792206 未加载
评论 #12790173 未加载
评论 #12790549 未加载
评论 #12790280 未加载
评论 #12793122 未加载
评论 #12792788 未加载
评论 #12803491 未加载
bjourne超过 8 年前
In most political topics on Wikipedia, you have a consensus because those who do not agree with it are quickly booted.<p>It works like this. Most of the time most editors are polite, but sometimes you get frustrated and are not. You might not write &quot;fuck you <i></i><i></i> fucking nazi-lover!&quot; or something extreme, but something like &quot;your opinion is idiotic!&quot; or &quot;you don&#x27;t know what you&#x27;re talking about here...&quot; It happens everyone. However, if you don&#x27;t agree with the &quot;consensus&quot; every little outburst will cost you much more. A newbie will be banned for much smaller infractions than a regular.<p>So, if you are having an argument with someone who is a &quot;respectable editor&quot; or &quot;valuable contributor&quot; in the community, they can and will be quite rude to you but you must not pay back in kind because you will be banned.<p>There are also intricate rules governing &quot;reverting&quot;. Reverting means you are undoing someones changes and I can say from experience that having your edits reverted can be frustrating. I don&#x27;t know exactly what the rules are but they seem to be effectively that the more &quot;respectable&quot; you are, the more you can revert your opponents edits.<p>This power imbalance can be seen all over Wikipedia if you look for it. Many articles have editors that consider themselves the &quot;owner&quot; of that article. The way they have written the article is the best way and they don&#x27;t see their own NPOV violations (Wikipedia term for writing biased texts). Sometimes the talk pages and their archives contain dozens of comments from anonymous ip users raising issues with the article and they are all refuted by the owner. They don&#x27;t have the endurance or enough standing in the Wikipedia community to fight so they give up and find more constructive things to spend their time on.
评论 #12791033 未加载
评论 #12791542 未加载
评论 #12792674 未加载
评论 #12792052 未加载
amadsen超过 8 年前
&#x27;In a draft paper published last week, Shane Greenstein and his colleagues Feng Zhu and Yuan Gu found that over the years, individuals who edit political articles on Wikipedia seem to grow less biased — their contributions start to contain noticeably fewer ideologically-charged statements.<p>“We thought this was quite striking,” said Greenstein, a professor at Harvard Business School. “The most slanted Wikipedia editors tend to become more moderate over time.”&#x27;<p>Uh yeah maybe because the people in question grew older? Many of them may have joined wikipedia in their teens or early twenties and like so many others in that age group had quite raical political views and like so many others become more moderate as they mature and learn more about the world.
评论 #12791017 未加载
评论 #12791533 未加载
评论 #12790062 未加载
jcoffland超过 8 年前
&gt; By looking for these kinds of partisan idioms in Wikipedia articles, the Harvard researchers could determine whether the text sounded more like the product of a Republican or a Democrat. They were also able to document how the articles evolved over time.<p>Another explanation that fits the results of this study is that the popular party idioms changed over time. As the old idioms were replaced by new ones this analysis made the Wikipedia pages and editors appear to become less biased.
评论 #12790861 未加载
评论 #12793506 未加载
wallace_f超过 8 年前
If you read this carefully, you can see something quite ironic about this article:<p>The article&#x27;s argument is: &quot;Something&#x27;s terribly wrong with the internet.&quot; Evidence provided for something wrong was three pro-Trump comments about an anti-Trump article. The article then suggests &quot;recent research from Harvard Business School suggests that Wikipedia has become increasingly balanced in the course of its 15-year history.&quot;<p>So, the internet is biased, and people are uncivil. Wikipedia is civil and not biased; here are some points to learn from them.<p>The irony is that the article itself is no shining beacon of neutrality because it provides an anti-Trump and anti-alt right narrative. Any right-leaning comments must be fixed by editors, but left-leaning comments &#x27;fix themselves over time.&#x27;<p>Instead of the article making a sound argument for neutrality, it does nothing of the sort.<p>Disclaimer: criticism of the DNC, media and Clinton != support for Trump. I do not support Trump.<p>This article is masterfully written, but it&#x27;s not very pure in its intentions.
throwaway420超过 8 年前
Look at the utter contempt that the Washington Post is displaying for free individuals here. They refer to comments sections, where actual human beings who are not paid and bought for by corporate interests get to voice their opinions, as cesspools. What arrogance on their part!<p>Yeah, you&#x27;ll see some ugly comments on all kinds of social media once in a while, but seeing an uncouth phrase or three is absolutely nothing compared to the WAR PROPAGANDA on behalf of the military industrial complex that leads to the deaths of thousands and thousands. So yeah, I&#x27;ll take the cesspool of a comment section where I might see some truth every time over bought and paid for presstitutes, which we all know as absolute and undeniable fact now from Wikileaks.
评论 #12793872 未加载
评论 #12793423 未加载
评论 #12794263 未加载
评论 #12793982 未加载
评论 #12793653 未加载
评论 #12793146 未加载
redthrowaway超过 8 年前
Never thought I&#x27;d see WP talk pages held up as an example of civility. They certainly weren&#x27;t when I was there. AN&#x2F;I, ArbCom, flame wars a plenty.
评论 #12790779 未加载
mrcactu5超过 8 年前
<i>The Internet is dotted with cesspools, also known as comments sections</i><p>Comments sections are also extremely REVEALING... It seems we are getting a theory of why public opinion is so moderate -- it&#x27;s not just one opinion. It&#x27;s half of people expressing one view, the other half expressing another view. The version on Wikipedia is effectively the average between the two.<p>The history sections of wikipedia document this process in action. A lot of the things I look at are pretty dead but I am often impressed when a crappy wikipedia page and a few months later the page has really excellent discussion:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pythagorean_triple" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pythagorean_triple</a> and <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pythagorean_theorem" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pythagorean_theorem</a>
basch超过 8 年前
Most of the debate on wikipedia is regarding which rules to apply soasto prevent people from submitting edits.
评论 #12790495 未加载
评论 #12794513 未加载
empath75超过 8 年前
&gt; Go to any article and visit the “talk” tab. More often than not, you&#x27;ll find a somewhat orderly debate, even on contentious topics like Hillary Clinton&#x27;s e-mails or Donald Trump&#x27;s sexual abuse allegations.<p>Oh, for the really good talk sections, you need to look at anything vaguely related to Macedonia:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Talk:Alexander_the_Great" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Talk:Alexander_the_Great</a>
评论 #12791504 未加载
评论 #12793275 未加载
评论 #12794682 未加载
vonklaus超过 8 年前
I don&#x27;t think the &quot;internet&#x27;s biggest flaw&quot; is that it allows for free, unmoderated speech.<p>&gt; What’s even more interesting is that Wikipedia seems to exert a moderating influence on its contributors.<p>This is a great concept, but usually is horrible in practice. It says that wikipedia was partisan and quite left, and has since become more balanced. However, this illustrates a positive outcome of a dangerous potential. This model works much worse for less authoritative sites, but I personally do not believe wikipedia should moderate based on anything other than &quot;truth&quot;. Regardless, this is extremely subjective and difficult to do. I think it is working at wikipedia (compared to other places) and am optimistic, but I have seen this go wrong so many times.
MollyR超过 8 年前
After all the replication failures, poor statistics, and more in the social sciences. I am skeptical of this.
hardwaresofton超过 8 年前
Am I the only one that actually finds immense value in the comments sections of different sites on the internet? Obviously there&#x27;s some sifting to do (inflammatory comments that are meant to be nothing but inflammatory should just be ignored), but I come to the internet to interact with people, not just seek out knowledge. I find things like hn (or reddit) hivemind immensely fascinating, almost like a shared consciousness.<p>I like the comments sections. I often go there for a chuckle, or to see what other people think. Yeah, some people use that opportunity to troll, or say hurtful things or whatever, but that&#x27;s what the world is, I&#x27;d rather never forget that. I also don&#x27;t want everyone to mellow to the same position and then everyone holds the same (possibly wrong) position forever, that sounds like a bland existence.<p>Free discourse is not a flaw, it&#x27;s a feature.
maxt超过 8 年前
This is why I quite admire initiatives like Hypothesis[1] where we can annotate the web by overlaying an abstraction on top of it which can give a page more depth and context.<p>Similar projects like the Genius web annotator[2] tries to achieve the same.<p>It doesn&#x27;t mean the commenters (or annotators) will be any less mean, but it certainly is preferable to a Disqus widget dangling on the end of a page, or the default Wordpress commenting engine which allows seemingly <i>anyone</i> to comment regardless of whether they signed up or not.<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;hypothes.is&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;hypothes.is&#x2F;</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;genius.com&#x2F;web-annotator" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;genius.com&#x2F;web-annotator</a>
评论 #12792461 未加载
评论 #12791484 未加载
评论 #12794695 未加载
exstudent2超过 8 年前
First sentence:<p>&gt; The Internet is dotted with cesspools, also known as comments sections.<p>Comment sections are the only thing keeping a check on publications like the Washington Post. Whether they&#x27;re on-site or off-site (like what you&#x27;re reading now on HN), they&#x27;re invaluable. Sure, not all of the audience with an opinion will be politically correct, but I value the commentary of a piece as much or more as the piece itself. Especially when it&#x27;s something purely opinion based like this one.
abalashov超过 8 年前
The main skill—in short supply—that Wikipedia fosters is to look at things from varying points of view, through a kind of detached pseudoprofessionalism.<p>Because the function of Wikipedia is to exhibit different viewpoints (where applicable) rather than to convince anyone of them, it&#x27;s much easier to step into a relativistic, descriptive mindset, rather than a prescriptive one.
thesz超过 8 年前
If I may weigh in, the &quot;cocoon&quot; that is so scorned by many, is a feature.<p>It allows people to actually <i>get things done</i>. It allows them to spend less thought on the topics that are not concerned them in their day lives and spend more on their... day lives!<p>Basically, if you want people to go out of their cocoons, make their life easier. Otherwise, the fight is futile.
评论 #12792772 未加载
评论 #12790579 未加载
评论 #12793368 未加载
stirner超过 8 年前
A centrist argument is not necessarily correct. There are many more dimensions to ideology than the left&#x2F;right spectrum.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Argument_to_moderation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Argument_to_moderation</a>
评论 #12795854 未加载
tangerine_beet超过 8 年前
I&#x27;m wondering how popular media sites could apply to their comments sections some of the things Wikipedia is doing. For example, imagine commenters divided into two opposing camps over a controversial issue discussed in a news report. A separate discussion is organized to create a report on the issue using the Wikipedia process and rules. Any commenter can contribute, and it is guided by (perhaps volunteer) editors. Such reports then get aggregated in a separate section of the site...<p>Could something like this actually 1) create value for the media by engaging users and generating content 2) elevate the discourse between readers and 3) actually make the media less biased over time as it is repeatedly called out for partisan slant in its editorial and reporting?
jimmaswell超过 8 年前
There&#x27;s a subreddit of people who think Wikipedia operates with large-scale bias by the administration. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;WikiInAction&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;WikiInAction&#x2F;</a>
omouse超过 8 年前
&gt;In a draft paper published last week, Shane Greenstein and his colleagues Feng Zhu and Yuan Gu found that over the years, individuals who edit political articles on Wikipedia seem to grow less biased — their contributions start to contain noticeably fewer ideologically-charged statements.<p>This seems obvious: as you are exposed to more points of view, you start to develop your own nuanced view of the world. At a certain point you feel okay with reading FOX News because you would like to see how other people think and it trains you to see the logical fallacies and biases.
kristofferR超过 8 年前
The title of this piece makes no sense. How are the talk pages on Wikipedia supposedly going to fix the vicious comment sections on the internet?
drxyzzy超过 8 年前
The internet is a large, evolving cognitive system. Present information flow, riddled as it is with disinformation, faulty reasoning, and category errors, might be comparable to disorganization in the minds of individual creatures during early development.
clusmore超过 8 年前
I think one of the interesting consequences of the echo chamber that social networks create is that everybody thinks they are in the majority. For example, if you view the comments on political pages, you&#x27;ll often see conflicting claims that &quot;the majority of people think X&quot;. I think each person making these claims genuinely feel that they are in the majority because their echo chamber distorts the proportion of supporting voices, and then you see comments like &quot;who are all these people who voted for Y?&quot;<p>Edit to add: I think the problem is not only that people don&#x27;t see views other than their own, but that they become unaware that other views even exist.
zer0gravity超过 8 年前
This article is hardly about Wikipedia. You can feel the electoral smell from a mile away.
评论 #12790902 未加载
dsfyu404ed超过 8 年前
It&#x27;s possible that highly biased editors drifting toward center is just another instance of &quot;a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth&quot; where the lie is the opposing ideology that one must read in order to edit.
yarrel超过 8 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Wikilawyering</a>
kseifried超过 8 年前
This is why for CVE&#x27;s assigned via the Distributed Weakness Filing (DWF) Project I require a copy of the artifact, the reality is your website might go away, or get lost at sea, or deleted, or whatever. For information supporting CVE identifiers it&#x27;s a super huge pain in the ass when the website&#x2F;document disappears.
artcodedata超过 8 年前
The search for an unique , single truth is the mentality that destroy ancient ruins and burn books, no matter if it&#x27;s coming from Wikipedia, Trump supporters or BLM all of them are valid. And that&#x27;s Wikipedia&#x27;s biggest flaw, their system can only handle one version of truth. A more complex system would be able to handle more than one version of the truth.
pixelbill超过 8 年前
Why have there been so many washingtonpost articles lately? Pretty annoying to those who don&#x27;t want to deal with paywalls to get their news.
评论 #12790615 未加载
评论 #12790466 未加载
matthewmorgan超过 8 年前
&#x27;Don&#x27;t take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever you think you&#x27;re bound to be OK, because you&#x27;re safely in the moral majority.&#x27; --Christopher Hitchens<p>Well worth a watch imho <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=K4hqFvXm57M" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=K4hqFvXm57M</a>
webwanderings超过 8 年前
The real problem with the comments on the Internet, is of logistics of huge number, and lack of human ability to process them at scale. Just look at any of the popular HN threads. You cannot expect anyone to be reading all the comments when they show up in large numbers under one thread. The rest of everything else is secondary.
fulafel超过 8 年前
It&#x27;s disingenious to apply a methodology designed to find out &quot;republican&quot; and &quot;democratic&quot; positions to Wikipedia, and then draw conclusions about how objectively biased the content is, especially since the center in US politics is so right-leaning in the global context.
评论 #12795381 未加载
cooper12超过 8 年前
As a Wikipedia editor, I think this can mostly be attested to the site&#x27;s policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. [0] Over time you learn to watch out for certain words [1] and you can sniff out things that were copied verbatim or written in a improper tone. In terms of discussions, personal attacks are discouraged [2] and there&#x27;s a strong focus on providing reliable sources, [3] so discussion often shifts to discussing those instead. Off-topic discussion is also commonly removed [4] and there are avenues for dispute resolution. [5] Of course you&#x27;ll still find plenty of heated disputes and some biased articles, but the project is a work in progress after all. I think the most important factor is that there are people of different viewpoints willing to work together to integrate them in a way to best give weight to them rather than creating content forks. (this is why conservapedia is doing so bad) [6] You can&#x27;t fix bias by creating an echo chamber or pretending it isn&#x27;t there, but rather by keeping an open mind and welcoming those who think differently.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...</a><p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&#x2F;Words_to_watch" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&#x2F;Word...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks</a><p>[3]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable...</a><p>[4]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines</a><p>[5]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution</a><p>[6]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Content_forking" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Content_forking</a>
评论 #12790717 未加载
notliketherest超过 8 年前
Has anyone read the comments section below a DrudgeReport linked article? Oh my god you will lose your faith in humanity.
devheart超过 8 年前
Use Infogalactic instead.
pastProlog超过 8 年前
From 1933 to 1953, the Democratic party held the presidency in the United States. Twenty years out of power is said to have been one of the factors leading to McCarthyism. McCarthy called it &quot;20 years of treason&quot; (then once he started fighting Eisenhower he started talking about 21 years of treason). Republicans began accusing the entire Democratic establishment of being KGB spies. The head of the John Birch Society thought this was a foregone conclusion, he wrote a book about how the Republican establishment including Eisenhower were all KGB spies.<p>This cold war paranoia and political shift is all over Wikipedia. The faintest accusation of someone back then is all over their Wikipedia article. Much of the Democratic and liberal establishment from 1932-1952 is said to be Soviet spies on Wikipedia, and as far as I know, 100% of people who had questions about the Cold war. I don&#x27;t know one liberal from that period who was more skeptical of the Cold war than Truman (who launched the Truman Doctrine in March 1947, then became involved in the Korean war) who is <i>not</i> accused of being a Soviet spy.<p>I wish I could remember the whole list. The article for journalist I. F. Stone. The article for treasury official Harry Dexter White. Commerce department official and later author Harry Magdoff. Lieutenant Colonel Duncan Lee who had the misfortune of being acquainted with the kooky, flighty Elizabeth Bentley. In the light of all of these, the article for secretary of state Dean Acheson all but accuses him of being pro-communist.<p>The &quot;China hands&quot; like Owen Lattimore (being accused of being an agent of the Chinese wouldn&#x27;t do, so he was accused of being a Soviet agent). John S. Service who had the misfortune to be assigned to the Dixie Mission while working for the Foreign Service. Actually the article on China hand Theodore H. White manages to have been relatively unscathed by the crazies.<p>I&#x27;m sure there were some Russian spies in the US in the 1940s, and some American spies in Russia. Wikipedia still has this McCarthyist idea spread out over the high officials of that time were all KGB spies. Forget about anyone to the left of the 1947 Truman Doctrine to fight the Greek left, they&#x27;re almost automatically concluded to be communist spies.<p>Then it&#x27;s proffered that Venona proves all these people as spies. But Venona has code names, not names. Venona says something like &quot;Agent TREE met us in Central Park in May 8, 1948&quot;. As so-and-so lived in New York in 1948, the editors use that fact to link a codename to a name. Venona is said to prove every accusation, but it does not. Most of the people who it does seem to confirm were European emigrees and people in the communist party orbit. Not the liberal WASPs in the Democratic establishment who are accused of being Soviet spies.<p>The Wikipedia articles on various Democratic officials in the 1930s and 1940s are really nuts. Even a neutral article like the Theodore White one has to mention that he was suspected to be a communist spy at one time.
triplesec超过 8 年前
I&#x27;m not sure your single variable alternative explanation of this effect warrants such a dismissive tone to the hypothesis in the article. Using such rhetoric is Truthy, by being plausible and socially and rhetorically effective without being backed up by any research or even data. Claiming you have greater expertise through attempted ridicule of the original is not a valid argument. Such a rhetorical tactic likely has a fallacy named after it. (Any debaters here cars to chime in? )<p>What are your justifications for your beliefs, and how are they superior to those in the article?
评论 #12791547 未加载
评论 #12790898 未加载
libeclipse超过 8 年前
Apparently AMP prevents the Google trick of being able to bypass paywalls. Can someone post the gist of the article here?
评论 #12790038 未加载
评论 #12790949 未加载
评论 #12791775 未加载
sickbeard超过 8 年前
sorry I can&#x27;t take someone&#x2F;entity seriously when they claim the internet&#x27;s biggest flaw is shit-posting, or free expression as I call it.