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。

English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades

118 点作者 akolbe超过 1 年前

10 条评论

letmevoteplease超过 1 年前
Here is a quote from the COVID-19 lab leak theory article[1] as an example of how Wikipedia&#x27;s NPOV policy is implemented. I&#x27;ll let it speak for itself.<p>&quot;The lab leak theory is informed by racist undercurrents, and has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment. [...] While the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear than any can can be sufficiently falsified to placate lab leak supporters, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking.&quot;<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;COVID-19_lab_leak_theory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;COVID-19_lab_leak_theory</a>
评论 #38170488 未加载
评论 #38170627 未加载
评论 #38170704 未加载
评论 #38171134 未加载
评论 #38170396 未加载
评论 #38170535 未加载
评论 #38170380 未加载
评论 #38170129 未加载
type0超过 1 年前
The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that it ignores a lot of factual scientific publications that wiki-editors are unable to comprehend and then blindly trusts &quot;notable&quot; sources published in junky paper articles while those papers regularly caught outright lying in their articles.
pard68超过 1 年前
Putting aside the political portion, this seems like it could potentially lead to Wiki being &quot;behind the times&quot; at the least and stifling advancements at the extreme. The telescope was once fringe, and rightly so. Imagine reading that some guy had been able to see something in the sky that you can&#x27;t see, you gotta trust him bro.<p>Modern medical practice was a fringe view two hundred years ago.<p>My point is if you hide the fringe then you either get left behind or prevent others from moving forward.
评论 #38170116 未加载
评论 #38170141 未加载
评论 #38170256 未加载
评论 #38170630 未加载
评论 #38175102 未加载
评论 #38170502 未加载
pictureofabear超过 1 年前
TLDR; Wikipedia&#x27;s definition of &quot;Neutral Point of View&quot; evolved from &quot;Providing different, attributable points of view, diverse sources, and prohibition of pejorative labels&quot;<p>to<p>&quot;statements of fact, sourcing hierarchy, and acceptance of pejorative labels.&quot;<p>This transition was propelled by early victories in the &quot;anti-fringe&quot; camp, driving away members of the &quot;pro-fringe&quot; camp.
评论 #38169853 未加载
评论 #38170110 未加载
评论 #38169680 未加载
mandmandam超过 1 年前
Sounds good, until you try to find an anti-war media source that isn&#x27;t labeled &#x27;fringe&#x27;. Both liberal and conservative US media sources love war, and profit from it. Alternate views don&#x27;t get a look in, not in politics, and not in media. The most graphic recent example of this might be the population&#x27;s <i>65%</i> support for a ceasefire in Gaza - completely unrepresented in media and the executive.<p>Pro-war media, corporate media, whether &quot;liberal&quot; or &quot;conservative&quot; both look rabid and bloodthirsty to the rest of the world. The NYT and WaPo, Fox ABC CNN CBS, even NPR have cheer-lead us into expensive atrocity after expensive atrocity.<p>Wikipedia have enabled them and censored dissenting views, openly, even clapping themselves on the back for it. They&#x27;ve red- and black-listed <i>every</i> anti-war outlet. &quot;The last good place on the internet&quot; my arse.
评论 #38174335 未加载
评论 #38177407 未加载
评论 #38170604 未加载
评论 #38177620 未加载
chx超过 1 年前
The English Wikipedia might (or might not) have achieved this but certainly the Croatian and Polish were caught to be heavily influenced by right wing extremists, the Hungarian was not yet because no one gives a damn.<p>But my recipe of adding <i>anything</i> to Wikipedia still stands, I adopted it from an article added by Hungarian nationalists: while you must source things, the quality of the source is not checked. So take an obscure book, obviously not in English and claim your fact comes from it. No one will try to dig up a small run German book decades or even hundreds of years old to verify. Or will be able to.<p>The thing is, the people Wikipedia successfully did drive out are actual experts -- or rather they never came. The no credentials are accepted policy makes sure the experts stay away in droves. Imagine someone putting in decades of work to gain expertise in a field being told they need to argue with a neckbeard with too much time on their hands. No thanks.
评论 #38171011 未加载
评论 #38170637 未加载
_kulang超过 1 年前
Thank goodness for that
评论 #38170330 未加载
fsckboy超过 1 年前
[and i get downvoted because even though mine is one of a diverse number of opinions, and my history as a good participant of this community mean nothing: opinion is the type of diversity that some people can&#x27;t allow, here and on wikipedia]<p>English (language not kingdom) Wikipedia has become a party organ* for whatever they call themselves, those people who took over and ruined philosophy, history, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, et al departments of universities (get rid of dead white males and anything they ever wrote!) to allow only deconstructive, post modernist, existentialist, nihilist, anti-western, socialist, personal truth and lived experience; the same people who are now battering down the gates of science and technology (remember Shut Down Tech day?) because believing there is &quot;the right answer&quot; to a problem is itself problematic, an expression of white privilege. Math should allow many answers depending on the student&#x27;s truth and lived experience. And they shouldn&#x27;t have to turn in their work &quot;on time&quot;, that oppressive white western male notion. The same people that are marching in the streets to say that mass murder and terrorism are morally justifiable expressions of yearning for a brighter future, alongside a brighter future for women in Islam, just don&#x27;t be too specific about what you mean, said the Walrus.<p>This is not my personal original research, the &quot;other&quot; cofounder of wikipedia (along with The Outlaw Jimmy Wales) says the same <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nypost.com&#x2F;2021&#x2F;07&#x2F;16&#x2F;wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nypost.com&#x2F;2021&#x2F;07&#x2F;16&#x2F;wikipedia-co-founder-says-site...</a><p>Wikipedia btw raises tons of money, they are rolling in cash. Why do they keep begging you for more with interstitials? Because they have a number of woke &quot;diversity&quot;, &quot;equity&quot;, and &quot;inclusion&quot; projects they are dumping your money into. It has nothing to do with making wikipedia better.<p>*<i>party organ</i> as in: The Nation, volume 180, number 9, page 173: “Modern armed forces cannot be built without heavy industry,” the People’s Daily, the central organ of the Chinese Communist Party, has remarked pointedly.
评论 #38169975 未加载
评论 #38169968 未加载
评论 #38170723 未加载
评论 #38169914 未加载
LordDragonfang超过 1 年前
&gt; the author &quot;classif[ied] editors into the Anti-Fringe camp (AF) and the Pro-Fringe camp (PF)&quot;. The AF camp is described as &quot;editors who were anti-conspiracy theories, anti-pseudoscience, and liberal&quot;, whereas the PF camp consists of &quot;Editors who were more supportive of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and conservatism.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s interesting to see Wikipedia publication so readily admit that, rightly or wrongly, its &quot;Neutral Point of View&quot; considers [American] conservatism a &quot;fringe&quot; (implicitly, counterfactual) belief.<p>The &quot;politics&quot; section further down touches on this, but doesn&#x27;t actually deny it. Like I said, interesting, since it&#x27;s something that I&#x27;ve seen conservatives whine about, but I assumed Wikipedia&#x27;s official position was the &quot;NPOV&quot; meant politically neutral.
评论 #38169728 未加载
评论 #38169788 未加载
评论 #38169787 未加载
评论 #38169789 未加载
评论 #38169829 未加载
explaininjs超过 1 年前
Take RFK Jr&#x27;s opening sentence:<p>&gt; Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an American environmental lawyer and writer who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories.<p>That&#x27;s the #1 most important thing to be known about him, Wikipedia? Compare to the opening paragraph on Stalin:<p>&gt; Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was a Soviet revolutionary and politician who was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953). Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become a dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.<p>Or Mao:<p>&gt; Mao Zedong was a Chinese politician, Marxist theorist, military strategist, poet, and revolutionary who was the founder of the People&#x27;s Republic of China (PRC). He led the country from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976, while also serving as the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party during that time. His theories, military strategies and policies are known as Maoism.
评论 #38170889 未加载
评论 #38170556 未加载
评论 #38173199 未加载