Wikipedia | ....

Zalex108

@ingolftopf said in Vivaldi integrates Mastodon in its desktop browser.:

@GoustiFruit said in Vivaldi integrates Mastodon in its desktop browser.:

OH, WHY, did you also add Wikipedia, the most corrupted "service" in the world ???

Wikipedia is certainly not a corrupt service.
For me, it is one of the most valuable achievements of the internet.

Feel free to open a new thread if you want to discuss this seriously.
But this is the wrong place.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/

DoctorG

@Zalex108 They all dance a political waltz. Internet backyards and their owners.
Wikipedia is since years a hell of admins and strange rules redactors. But i have no need write there.

luetage

@Zalex108 How is Wikipedia be supposed to be a site presenting multiple points of view (speak opinions). That’s complete BS, Wikipedia should present facts and nothing more, and optimally these facts should be backed up by serious sources.

By the way, nypost is not a serious source. I don’t know what you’re doing here.

Zalex108

@DoctorG said in Wikipedia | ....:

@Zalex108 They all dance a political waltz. Internet backyards and their owners.
Wikipedia is since years a hell of admins and strange rules redactors. But i have no need write there.

Totally,
Actually the whole Social, either Digital or "Physical".

DoctorG

@luetage said in Wikipedia | ....:

nypost is not a serious source

Full ack.

Zalex108

@luetage said in Wikipedia | ....:

@Zalex108 How is Wikipedia be supposed to be a site presenting multiple points of view (speak opinions). That’s complete BS, Wikipedia should present facts and nothing more, and optimally these facts should be backed up by serious sources.

By the way, nypost is not a serious source. I don’t know what you’re doing here.

Read the quote, the reason is there.

Of course it's not to give opinions,
Nor to remove those Data about facts being true because they aren't the official versions.

Zalex108

@luetage

Choose any other
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Wikipedia+co-founder+says+site+is+now+‘propaganda’+for+left-leaning+‘establishment&t=vivaldim&ia=web

Or go to the interview

https://youtu.be/Dc_6ljDN0U8

Catweazle

@Zalex108 , I'm a little fed up with the proliferation of publications by people from the far right who dedicate themselves everywhere to discredit publications that do not fit their ideology, calling it left-wing propaganda. In another forum he went so far as to call it a holocaust document, saying that this holocaust is a lie spread by the communists and similar niceties, even in certain media you can find similar articles by supposed "experts" (sometimes even with misspellings), denying climate change, vaccines are fake, Africans are invading us, when some appear half dead in a boat on the coast, etc..

Zalex108

Currently is neither a Left or Right nor Centre problem, is just a show, like sports, the "winners" are even above the "players" and those, even change from one "Team" to another.

But in this case it's the individual who loses all kind of freedom.

Catweazle

@Zalex108 , in general, from the outset I don't trust anything that appears in the media or on the internet, without checking the information.
But if I look for information on the Wiki, I see widely documented articles with a lot of bibliography and multimedia links and according to the principle of parsimony I tend to give it more credibility than the comments of some blogger or comments on a social network.

Zalex108

@Catweazle

It depends on the content.

AltCode

Article aside, its an interesting topic, and one that is even covered by wikipedia itself (for whatever that is worth) in a few articles:

The most curious of these articles, imo, is the one where Wikipedia proclaims itself to not be a reliable source, despite often requiring reliable sourcing to even allow the existence of an article.

I'd say that wikipedia is now simply too big to definitively say that it has been "taken over". Nevertheless, depending on the kind of content you are viewing, you'll definitely see different degrees of editing rule moderation, different thresholds for reliable/credible sources, and the kind of editing rules you'll be subjected to will be different as well.

Catweazle

@AltCode , few things are 100% reliable and less on the net. Not even the traditional paper encyclopedias are, which also require permanent revision and editing so as not to become obsolete and outdated.

The information in the Wiki must always be taken with a grain of salt (independently also in which language, where there are also great differences in the content).

The only thing I can say is that I find more reliable than what the Wiki puts, than what is read on the rest of the web, you always have to check the content and for this reason I also have links to academic, research, historical publications, etc. .. where I use the Wiki only as a starting point when I'm not convinced by the content.

There are alternatives to the Wiki, but the ones I've seen, aside from poorer content, aren't as reliable either.