$5.00
$15.00
$20.00
Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
43 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Wikipedia: How much will you donate? (POLL) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Many here evince* respect and desire for accuracy, fairness, even-handedness and improvement of the lives of others.

To further these ends please respond to the poll below.

edit: This OP takes the view that Wikipedia is a deeply troubled project. And that it is very resistant to change. Replacing it with a more humanely structured project appears the way forward to me.
I have found from the responses to this thread that the problems of Wikipedia are not widely recognised and the many still view Wikipedia in a positive light. A link for those wishing to share their positive appraisal of Wikipedia is below the polls.

Poll: Wikipedia: Annual donation
Being a responsible and concerned member of global society I would annually donate this amount to an organization that was equipped and purposed to supplant Wikipedia.
I would donate
$5
$10
$20
$50
$100
$500
      6 answers
Poll created by Pinook


Poll: Major concerns about Wikipedia.
My major concerns about Wikipedia include the following:
Concerns
Unreliability of content
Superficiality of content
Inaccurate content
Widespread reliance on unreliable source (Wikipedia) by net users
Normalization of acceptance of an unreliable encyclopedia
Bastardization of editors
Social costs, such as suicide, divorce & depression, triggered by bastardization of editors
Normalization of bastardization of online projects participants
Use of Wikipedia for activism/propaganda
Corruption of administrative processes
A good open online encyclopedia appears to be unachievable and/or not worth the effort when Wikipedia is considered as an example of what can happen
All open online projects look less attractive an/or are seen as likely to fail in similar ways to Wikipedia
Other (Please detail in a post.)
      11 answers
Poll created by Pinook


to*evince my big word for the day
attest to
bear witness to
show
reveal


Edit: Have an over-all positive view of Wikipedia?
Share it HERE.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
Pushing a lesbian old growth union-approved agenda since '94.
mbmbmbmbmb
What if I like Wikipedia and think it's pretty good? Please add an option for me so that I may continue to feel special.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not going to donate to something specifically designed to replace wikipeida, I like wikipedia.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Manvel
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I give at least $100 a year to Wikipedia and think it's pretty amazing. Faults? Sure. But I wouldn't foresee anything else doing a better job.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Misleading title and poll
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mb
Pinook wrote:
Many here ezince* respect and desire for accuracy, fairness, even-handedness and improvement of the lives of others.
*ezince = LACK of those 'attributes' as evidenced HEREIN & THEREIN & EVERYWHEREIN 'empirically'.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
Many here evince* respect and desire for accuracy, fairness, even-handedness and improvement of the lives of others.

To further these ends please respond to the poll below.

Poll: Wikipedia: Annual donation
Being a responsible and concerned member of global society I would annually donate this amount to an organization that was equipped and purposed to supplant Wikipedia.
I would donate
$5
$10
$20
$50
$100
$500
      6 answers
Poll created by Pinook


Poll: Major concerns about Wikipedia.
My major concerns about Wikipedia include the following:
Concerns
Unreliability of content
Superficiality of content
Inaccurate content
Widespread reliance on unreliable source (Wikipedia) by net users
Normalization of acceptance of an unreliable encyclopedia
Bastardization of editors
Social costs, such as suicide, divorce & depression, triggered by bastardization of editors
Normalization of bastardization of online projects participants
Use of Wikipedia for activism/propaganda
Corruption of administrative processes
A good open online encyclopedia appears to be unachievable and/or not worth the effort when Wikipedia is considered as an example of what can happen
All open online projects look less attractive an/or are seen as likely to fail in similar ways to Wikipedia
Other (Please detail in a post.)
      11 answers
Poll created by Pinook


*evince my big word for the day
attest to
bear witness to
show
reveal







Decent gotcha, 6/10
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James D. Williams
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I need Wikipedia to fill me in on generalities about obscure biota, obscure stellar phenomena... Oh, heck:

Newly discovered dwarf planets, Neo-Assyrian records, Early church fathers, Samaritan Revolts, intermediate vector bosons, Neighborhood red-dwarfs [dwarves], Civil War Battles, Terror birds, The Texas Republic Debt, Osage concession to Missouri, Calculus, and so on...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
@Terwox. Please note also the low level of spelling and grammar errors in the OP.

In my world this isn't a gotcha.
That list of concerns about WP is real. Some of them pretty well evidenced. Others reasonable probabilities.

I think they are worthy of attention.
Wikipedia processes and how it's editors are being trained is shaping online society.
The longer substandard practices continue the more entrenched they become. And they'll even be seen as "normal" or "just how things are" rather than changeable consequences of decisions and choices.

Social structures make big impacts on peoples' lives - and Wikipedia is having many negative outcomes.

People don't want their clothes make by slave labour using recycled bandages but seem blase about how and of what their Wikipedia snacks are made.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
mb
Poll
1. The poll in the OP is...
Flawed
Deeply flawed
2. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Yes
No
      8 answers
Poll created by col_w
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
I put "other" because I think Wikipedia is fine.

It's not perfect, but it's better than some random replacement you're envisioning.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Terwox wrote:
I put "other" because I think Wikipedia is fine.

It's not perfect, but it's better than some random replacement you're envisioning.
Why would it be random and not "better structured to produce a humane working environment for editors"?
Why would the replacement not be structured to negate or minimize the other concerns listed in the OP?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
Terwox wrote:
I put "other" because I think Wikipedia is fine.

It's not perfect, but it's better than some random replacement you're envisioning.
Why would it be random and not "better structured to produce a humane working environment for editors"?
Why would the replacement not be structured to negate or minimize the other concerns listed in the OP?


You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works -- because people make a lot of money selling lies, even if they're selling those lies w/ the best of intentions and no knowledge that they're harming people.

And if you have a gatekeeper that vets information for accuracy, you end up with bias as power corrupts.

Are there structural ways to avoid this? Sure, but I don't think the costs are necessarily worth the benefits.

Like, if you're sad that wikipedia says climate change is real, I don't care that you're sad. (If you're sad wikipedia says ACC is going to end the world with a quickness, I'd be sympathetic, but it doesn't say that.)

So yeah -- I wouldn't donate any money as I would assume it would simply end up in the same place or worse.

But hey, post a full charter with your user rules and roles in place and you may persuade me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works -- because people make a lot of money selling lies, even if they're selling those lies w/ the best of intentions and no knowledge that they're harming people.

And if you have a gatekeeper that vets information for accuracy, you end up with bias as power corrupts.

Are there structural ways to avoid this? Sure, but I don't think the costs are necessarily worth the benefits.

...
So yeah -- I wouldn't donate any money as I would assume it would simply end up in the same place or worse.


Your reply helps evidence the concern, "A good* open online encyclopedia appears to be unachievable and/or not worth the effort when Wikipedia is considered as an example of what can happen".

*Good here includes, but is not limited to:
A humane working environment for editors.
Reliable content.
Content with depth.
Encyclopedic content not propaganda and activist content.
Policy and guidelines being uniformly and consistently upheld and applied by administrators.
An online project that is an exemplar of excellence.

Structures other than the one that Wikipedia has assumed are possible.
And will have very different outcomes - outcomes that avoid, negate or minimise the problems that currently beset Wikipedia.

Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works
You do realise that the current option taken by Wikipedia is to present misleading and inaccurate information around topics like vaccination?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:

Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works
You do realise that the current option taken by Wikipedia is to present misleading and inaccurate information around topics like vaccination?


Example?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
lfisher wrote:
Pinook wrote:

Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works
You do realise that the current option taken by Wikipedia is to present misleading and inaccurate information around topics like vaccination?


Example?
I hear one is in line for academic publication shortly.
I'll supply a link when it hits the streets.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
lfisher wrote:
Pinook wrote:

Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works
You do realise that the current option taken by Wikipedia is to present misleading and inaccurate information around topics like vaccination?


Example?
I hear one is in line for academic publication shortly.
I'll supply a link when it hits the streets.


OK well I don't see how the current approach is to present misleading and inaccurate information on any topics.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
lfisher wrote:
Pinook wrote:

Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works
You do realise that the current option taken by Wikipedia is to present misleading and inaccurate information around topics like vaccination?


Example?
I hear one is in line for academic publication shortly.
I'll supply a link when it hits the streets.

Or you could just mention a couple things, since this is an informal message board and not a peer reviewed journal. I mean, it's nice, but you can't just drop something most of us consider nonsense and say "I'll support it later".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
lfisher wrote:

OK well I don't see how the current approach is to present misleading and inaccurate information on any topics.

There is a big difference between what Wikipedia says it does and what it actually does around some topics.

If you are going from the written Wikipedia documentation then I can understand your viewpoint.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
damiangerous wrote:
Pinook wrote:
lfisher wrote:
Pinook wrote:

Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works
You do realise that the current option taken by Wikipedia is to present misleading and inaccurate information around topics like vaccination?


Example?
I hear one is in line for academic publication shortly.
I'll supply a link when it hits the streets.

Or you could just mention a couple things, since this is an informal message board and not a peer reviewed journal. I mean, it's nice, but you can't just drop something most of us consider nonsense and say "I'll support it later".
You have some "right to know, right now"?
Not from where I sit.

To make what I've said clearer: I have not said that Wikipedia has an approach of presenting only inaccurate, misleading information around some topics.

That this approach by Wikipedia is surprising, worrying and distasteful I can understand.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
Pinook wrote:
lfisher wrote:
Pinook wrote:

Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works
You do realise that the current option taken by Wikipedia is to present misleading and inaccurate information around topics like vaccination?


Example?
I hear one is in line for academic publication shortly.
I'll supply a link when it hits the streets.

Or you could just mention a couple things, since this is an informal message board and not a peer reviewed journal. I mean, it's nice, but you can't just drop something most of us consider nonsense and say "I'll support it later".
You have some "right to know, right now"?
Not from where I sit.

To make what I've said clearer: I have not said that Wikipedia has a approach of presenting only inaccurate, misleading information around some topics.

That this approach by Wikipedia is surprising, worrying and distasteful I can understand.


If you aren't interested in convincing anyone I'm not sure what the point of the thread is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Or perhaps everyones' mind is not about to snap closed and be shut to future information?

I've lived with this worrying information about Wikipedia for some time.
It's probably better to let even the possibility of it being accurate soak in slowly anyway. It's very disappointing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
flag msg tools
Nothing happens for a reason, but everything happens by a mechanism
badge
Nitrogen Conservation Awareness: I pee in the yard
mbmbmbmbmb
Sr. Vanilla, if you have some sort of insider bombshell you might as well drop it. My mind's been blown so many times before that I can take it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works -- because people make a lot of money selling lies, even if they're selling those lies w/ the best of intentions and no knowledge that they're harming people.

And if you have a gatekeeper that vets information for accuracy, you end up with bias as power corrupts.

Are there structural ways to avoid this? Sure, but I don't think the costs are necessarily worth the benefits.

...
So yeah -- I wouldn't donate any money as I would assume it would simply end up in the same place or worse.


Your reply helps evidence the concern, "A good* open online encyclopedia appears to be unachievable and/or not worth the effort when Wikipedia is considered as an example of what can happen".

*Good here includes, but is not limited to:
A humane working environment for editors.
Reliable content.
Content with depth.
Encyclopedic content not propaganda and activist content.
Policy and guidelines being uniformly and consistently upheld and applied by administrators.
An online project that is an exemplar of excellence.

Structures other than the one that Wikipedia has assumed are possible.
And will have very different outcomes - outcomes that avoid, negate or minimise the problems that currently beset Wikipedia.

Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works
You do realise that the current option taken by Wikipedia is to present misleading and inaccurate information around topics like vaccination?


Wait. Are you an anti-vaxxer?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
flag msg tools
Nothing happens for a reason, but everything happens by a mechanism
badge
Nitrogen Conservation Awareness: I pee in the yard
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Pinook wrote:
Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works -- because people make a lot of money selling lies, even if they're selling those lies w/ the best of intentions and no knowledge that they're harming people.

And if you have a gatekeeper that vets information for accuracy, you end up with bias as power corrupts.

Are there structural ways to avoid this? Sure, but I don't think the costs are necessarily worth the benefits.

...
So yeah -- I wouldn't donate any money as I would assume it would simply end up in the same place or worse.


Your reply helps evidence the concern, "A good* open online encyclopedia appears to be unachievable and/or not worth the effort when Wikipedia is considered as an example of what can happen".

*Good here includes, but is not limited to:
A humane working environment for editors.
Reliable content.
Content with depth.
Encyclopedic content not propaganda and activist content.
Policy and guidelines being uniformly and consistently upheld and applied by administrators.
An online project that is an exemplar of excellence.

Structures other than the one that Wikipedia has assumed are possible.
And will have very different outcomes - outcomes that avoid, negate or minimise the problems that currently beset Wikipedia.

Terwox wrote:
You have some options -- you can keep your information accurate, or you can tell people that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy works
You do realise that the current option taken by Wikipedia is to present misleading and inaccurate information around topics like vaccination?


Wait. Are you an anti-vaxxer?
Yeah, c'mon dude, I thought we had a thing
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.