lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
On Wikipedia: How much will you donate? (POLL)
is the exchange

Pinook wrote:
damiangerous wrote:

... You are implying that "they" deliberately present inaccurate information at least some portion of the time.

Yes that is exactly what happens.
...


After a sleep, some hard work and writing a couple of comms, I now think I have been over-thinking the complexity of the situation.

I am prepared to release a Wikipedia diff (a URL showing the record of the difference between one version of a Wikipedia page and another version) that clearly demonstrates the deliberate presentation of misleading and inaccurate information by an admin. Who then proceeded to defend the content. With at least the acquiescence of other admins.

However on the other thread I see that many RSPers love Wikipedia. And think that what I am saying cannot be true.
damiangerous wrote:
Until then you're just throwing around baseless accusations.

Terwox wrote:
JoshBot wrote:
Terwox wrote:
Pinook wrote:
Terwox wrote:
...
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


I dunno, I'm starting to question the burning point of jet fuel.


So before I share that diff we'd better discuss what would be strong evidence of corruption of Wikipedia standards and processes around misleading and inaccurate content.

I see that many people have a lot of love for Wikipedia and I see that what I am saying about Wikipedia is very unpleasant.

Do RSPers have room for the possibility of corruption of Wikipedia?
Or shall I just leave the wonderful dream of Wikipedia in place? (I shared in that dream too.)

If there is no room for the possibility of corruption then for sure strong evidence will be "explained" away.

Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I however also include good women in there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmb
I have very strong opinions about those goddamn deletionists and their love of extremely long, impractical list articles, does that count?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
I believe it is possible for Wikipedia to be, not merely sincerely inaccurate or misused by authors with an agenda, but actively corrupted. For example, if there is a Wikipedia page about Wikipedia's finances, I would be unsurprised to learn that true information that Wikipedia was on firm financial footing were removed to make fundraising drives more effective.

However, I also think there are certain issues about which many people are surprisingly resistant to evidence. When dealing with those issues, it is common for even well-meaning, non-corrupt people to lose patience and assume that rational discussion is impossible. That warps some otherwise effective means of discourse. For example, the belief that doctors are all quacks and some alternative is much better, even when the alternative makes as little sense as homeopathy, is very surprisingly robust. Of course, this means that sometimes perfectly reasonable people who've heard some false information get dismissed out of hand. This is unfortunate, but the alternative of assuming everyone is like that is extremely time-consuming.

So, I'm interested in the diff, but I also think it's really common for people to misinterpret a normal process as a sign of institutional corruption. So be prepared to get some pushback, not out of love for Wikipedia, but out of exasperation with what I expect to see as a false and dangerous view which many unreasonable and few reasonable people hold.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Pushing a lesbian old growth union-approved agenda since '94.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Poop out your wisdom nugget, Pinook ! The people want to know the terrible truth about Wikipedia!
6 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harmonica
Netherlands
Tilburg
Noord-Brabant
flag msg tools
badge
Keep your lovin' brother happy!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
- The earth is flat.
- They never landed on the moon.
- The Queen of England is a double.
- Elvis is still alive.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walking on eggshells is not my style
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
anemaat wrote:
- The earth is flat.
- They never landed on the moon.
- The Queen of England is a double.
- Elvis is still alive.


Elvis will never die.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
E Butler
United States
Hughesville
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
anemaat wrote:
- The earth is flat.
- They never landed on the moon.
- The Queen of England is a double.
- Elvis is still alive.


Elvis will never die.


Elvis is everywhere

1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Mann
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
You realise that looking up information on wikipedia is voluntary? You can just do searches for any stuff you want to know about?

If you want to start up your own (completely unbiased) fucknutapedia then go ahead and do it. I'm sure it will be an amazing success and everyone will wonder how they ever overlooked your genius.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
sbszine wrote:
Poop out your wisdom nugget, Pinook ! The people want to know the terrible truth about Wikipedia!


That's not how the posts are reading to me sbszine.

Mike, Koldie and E Butler avoid the issue raised.

Chris seems to think that misleading and inaccurate content promoted/allowed by admins is OK in Wikipedia.

Rinelk can only stretch so far as content that is directly beneficial to Wikipedia.

You mockingly typify "deliberately misleading and inaccurate content promoted/allowed by admins" as "the terrible truth about Wikipedia!".

Harmonica raises ridiculous beliefs.

And Marco Mann can't see any problem with Wikipedia systemically promoting misleading and inaccurate content.

I'm getting nothing that looks like openess to new information about a important unrecognised flaw with Wikipedia.

Nobody saying something like, "I don't believe you but if Wikipedia was systemically promoting misleading and inaccurate content then that would be a major problem for an encyclopedia".

I ask again, "Do any RSPers have room for the possibility of serious corruption of Wikipedia standards and processes around content?"

edit: Another possibility has occured to me, "Is it OK for Wikipedia to systemically promote misleading and inaccurate content around some topics?"



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
So before I share that diff we'd better discuss what would be strong evidence of corruption of Wikipedia standards and processes around misleading and inaccurate content.


Examples of true things being changed to false things for the gain of the people in charge of Wikipedia would be an obvious one.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Pinook wrote:
So before I share that diff we'd better discuss what would be strong evidence of corruption of Wikipedia standards and processes around misleading and inaccurate content.


Examples of true things being changed to false things for the gain of the people in charge of Wikipedia would be an obvious one.
How about true* things being systemically changed to false* things for a positted/putative public good?

*Wikipedia does not do truth, rather accuracy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
How about true* things being systemically changed to false* things for a positted/putative public good?


Well, I wouldn't exactly call that corruption, except perhaps in some broader sense.

That said, examples of true things being changed to false things in wikipeida would I'm sure bother most people.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
Pinook wrote:
sbszine wrote:
Poop out your wisdom nugget, Pinook ! The people want to know the terrible truth about Wikipedia!


That's not how the posts are reading to me sbszine.

Mike, Koldie and E Butler avoid the issue raised.

Chris seems to think that misleading and inaccurate content promoted/allowed by admins is OK in Wikipedia.

Rinelk can only stretch so far as content that is directly beneficial to Wikipedia.

You mockingly typify "deliberately misleading and inaccurate content promoted/allowed by admins" as "the terrible truth about Wikipedia!".

Harmonica raises ridiculous beliefs.

And Marco Mann can't see any problem with Wikipedia systemically promoting misleading and inaccurate content.

I'm getting nothing that looks like openess to new information about a important unrecognised flaw with Wikipedia.

Nobody saying something like, "I don't believe you but if Wikipedia was systemically promoting misleading and inaccurate content then that would be a major problem for an encyclopedia".

I ask again, "Do any RSPers have room for the possibility of serious corruption of Wikipedia standards and processes around content?"

edit: Another possibility has occured to me, "Is it OK for Wikipedia to systemically promote misleading and inaccurate content around some topics?"


Pinook, I respect you, but your approach is making me extremely skeptical (most recently your insertion of "only" into my example). This doesn't seem like it's going to be about Wikipedia at all, instead, it seems like it's likely to be about some highly unusual belief of yours which I'm likely to think you're irrationally attached to and of which you see any dismissal as a sign of corruption.

That said, encyclopedias should be accurate. If I believe they have mischaracterized even the advocates or organizations associated with some awful and false belief, I would see that as a problem. Biases being what they are, it would seem like a more urgent problem to fix if the belief were of more societal benefit, but still. So, give us your link, and we'll do our best to be fair to you.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
I am prepared to release a Wikipedia diff (a URL showing the record of the difference between one version of a Wikipedia page and another version) that clearly demonstrates the deliberate presentation of misleading and inaccurate information by an admin. Who then proceeded to defend the content. With at least the acquiescence of other admins.

I'm all ears.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
rinelk wrote:


Pinook, I respect you, but your approach is making me extremely skeptical (most recently your insertion of "only" into my example). This doesn't seem like it's going to be about Wikipedia at all, instead, it seems like it's likely to be about some highly unusual belief of yours which I'm likely to think you're irrationally attached to and of which you see any dismissal as a sign of corruption.

That said, encyclopedias should be accurate. If I believe they have mischaracterized even the advocates or organizations associated with some awful and false belief, I would see that as a problem. Biases being what they are, it would seem like a more urgent problem to fix if the belief were of more societal benefit, but still. So, give us your link, and we'll do our best to be fair to you.

Congratulation rinelk.
You are the first person to speak for themself and say, "I would see that as a problem".

Please re-read what you wrote about the possibility of Wikipedia being corrupted. I could be off-beam in my reading.
If you don't see your presentation as pretty much ruling out the possibility of Wikipedia being corrupted around non-self interest topics then please write off my inclusion of "only" as the effects of being written off as a nutter and being told what I am saying is not worthy of serious consideration multiple times.

re: "we'll do our best to be fair to you". I would appreciate you being fair. And from what I've seen of you I'd except that. I am unclear who this "we" is. Many of the posters on these Wikipedia threads don't seem to "fair".

As to your suspicions: My schtick is articles that follow Wikipedia standards very closely. If I have weird beliefs I expect no more of Wikipedia than that their history will be presented in an understandable and accurate way in-line with Wikipedia standards.

However maybe you think my self-appraisal inaccurate?

No matter - the article of interest is not about a weird belief.
It would seem an unremarkable subject except that it intersects with the views of some activists and advocates.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:

No matter - the article of interest is not about a weird belief.
It would seem an unremarkable subject except that it intersects with the views of some activists and advocates.

I think we have reached the point of put up or shut up.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
bob_santafe wrote:
Pinook wrote:
I am prepared to release a Wikipedia diff (a URL showing the record of the difference between one version of a Wikipedia page and another version) that clearly demonstrates the deliberate presentation of misleading and inaccurate information by an admin. Who then proceeded to defend the content. With at least the acquiescence of other admins.

I'm all ears.
Robert, I understand you have some professional interest in this area and under normal circumstances I'd just take, "I'm all ears" as enough.

In this area however, after the reception I've received and what I've explicitly asked for in this thread it's not enough.

Would you find the deliberate presentation and defense of misleading and inaccurate content by a senior admin and the subsequent informed aquiescence by the admin community to that content remaining on Wikpedia to be a matter of concern to you?
Even if it could be argued that a greater good was being served by that misleading and inaccurate content?

I think this is a reasonable request of you due to the number of posters above who see no problem with Wikipedia being used to mis-inform and mislead. I want them to see that such things matter to many people.

This is not some silly gotcha.
I sincerely wish it was.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
andyl wrote:

I think we have reached the point of put up or shut up.
I think so too.
Share your position or fuck off.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
andyl wrote:

I think we have reached the point of put up or shut up.
I think so too.
Share your position or fuck off.

I have - my position is that claims require evidence. I am asking for that before making my mind up. Once I have seen what you have in mind I will have a better idea on whether it is corruption, just a malicious edit which hasn't reverted, or you being a kook.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AttackFactorZero wrote:
You realise that looking up information on wikipedia is voluntary? You can just do searches for any stuff you want to know about?

If you want to start up your own (completely unbiased) fucknutapedia then go ahead and do it. I'm sure it will be an amazing success and everyone will wonder how they ever overlooked your genius.


Hmm there is some competition there. Vox Day is trying to do something - http://file770.com/?p=31204
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
Would you find the deliberate presentation and defense of misleading and inaccurate content by a senior admin and the subsequent informed aquiescence by the admin community to that content remaining on Wikpedia to be a matter of concern to you?

Of course.

Pinook wrote:
Even if it could be argued that a greater good was being served by that misleading and inaccurate content?

The greater good is always served by truthfulness and never served by deception.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
andyl wrote:
Pinook wrote:
andyl wrote:

I think we have reached the point of put up or shut up.
I think so too.
Share your position or fuck off.

I have - my position is that claims require evidence. I am asking for that before making my mind up. Once I have seen what you have in mind I will have a better idea on whether it is corruption, just a malicious edit which hasn't reverted, or you being a kook.

Not good enough Andy.
If you can't come up with any general statement about your view of deliberately misleading and inaccurate content being promoted/allowed by admins then you seem to be weaselling already.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook;

You're as usual making a bizarre claim and then insisting others in principle denounce it if it's true without presenting a reasonable case it is true.

You may as well have posted that the alien invaders from the planet Mongo are using the internet to learn Earth's weaknesses and to eliminate the threat of anyone named Gordon. If true, would you not agree that's a bad thing?!

Then when nobody jumps to decry it, you'd be concluding they're Mongo-sympathizers.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
andyl wrote:
Pinook wrote:
andyl wrote:

I think we have reached the point of put up or shut up.
I think so too.
Share your position or fuck off.

I have - my position is that claims require evidence. I am asking for that before making my mind up. Once I have seen what you have in mind I will have a better idea on whether it is corruption, just a malicious edit which hasn't reverted, or you being a kook.

Not good enough Andy.
If you can't come up with any general statement about your view of deliberately misleading and inaccurate content being promoted/allowed by admins then you seem to be weaselling already.

Well I have had no evidence provided that leads me to the conclusion that is happening.

Obviously the deliberate propagation of incorrect content is to be deplored (I mean who the fuck wouldn't say that). It would require a pattern of such over time before I would jump to corruption and that incorrect content to be incorrect verifiable factual content not a judgement call on opinion or language.

So your question is odd.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You seem to be just seeking attention at this point.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  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.