Thanks to this thread, I will Never donate a DIME to Wikipedia. They screw-up all kinds of stuff especially in medical info. I worked 4 decades in medicine, I know certain facts...
And if you try to "Be Bold" and correct misinformation in an article using your expertise, an unemployed neckbeard editor will kindly revert your change and cite some policy you violated to justify the removal.
Without a solution to the problems that the current Wikipedia faces, what’s the point? Considering circumstances, I’m actually surprised Wikipedia is still in as good shape as it is.
They’ve been sneaky enough over the years that most people simply don’t know how bad they are, however if they’re getting to the point of actually deleting pages with legitimate information we’re probably going to start seeing a change in people’s perception to it... much like Reddit though sadly I think it’s far too engrained in the internet through searches and general content that it’s probably never going anywhere.
Wikipedia presents truth mixed with falsehoods as stories, in a neutral authoritative tone, deferring to "reliable sources" that it has curated to craft a desired narrative. Maybe that's a problem with encyclopedias in general. A real global knowledge-base would be the complete opposite: any source allowed, no expectation of truth or authority, sometimes personal opinions and analyses, with data-points just loosely weaved together by topic.
I have been thinking about an alternative lately since I find the whole idea and management of "Wiki" poor and believe it's outlived its usefulness. It was a good experiment but I don't imagine wikis being the primary encyclopedia format for Web3+. We need a distributed replacement where information flows out as small consumable "factoids" from individuals and small news sources, enforces strong connections to the original sources, stores the data on some kind of robust network (using something not domain-specific like IPFS), and is syndicated by aggregator sites where the crowd collects the factoids into topics and prioritizes them.
I have a lot of ideas but need to do more research on other distributed databases to find out what's already available and what's novel.
Thanks to this thread, I will Never donate a DIME to Wikipedia. They screw-up all kinds of stuff especially in medical info. I worked 4 decades in medicine, I know certain facts...
And if you try to "Be Bold" and correct misinformation in an article using your expertise, an unemployed neckbeard editor will kindly revert your change and cite some policy you violated to justify the removal.
Yes, Already tried Correcting them once Re Clinical hypnosis
Oh my, Wikipedia follows mainstream... medicine which is just as clueless. Really sad.
Without a solution to the problems that the current Wikipedia faces, what’s the point? Considering circumstances, I’m actually surprised Wikipedia is still in as good shape as it is.
They’ve been sneaky enough over the years that most people simply don’t know how bad they are, however if they’re getting to the point of actually deleting pages with legitimate information we’re probably going to start seeing a change in people’s perception to it... much like Reddit though sadly I think it’s far too engrained in the internet through searches and general content that it’s probably never going anywhere.
Wikipedia presents truth mixed with falsehoods as stories, in a neutral authoritative tone, deferring to "reliable sources" that it has curated to craft a desired narrative. Maybe that's a problem with encyclopedias in general. A real global knowledge-base would be the complete opposite: any source allowed, no expectation of truth or authority, sometimes personal opinions and analyses, with data-points just loosely weaved together by topic.
I have been thinking about an alternative lately since I find the whole idea and management of "Wiki" poor and believe it's outlived its usefulness. It was a good experiment but I don't imagine wikis being the primary encyclopedia format for Web3+. We need a distributed replacement where information flows out as small consumable "factoids" from individuals and small news sources, enforces strong connections to the original sources, stores the data on some kind of robust network (using something not domain-specific like IPFS), and is syndicated by aggregator sites where the crowd collects the factoids into topics and prioritizes them.
I have a lot of ideas but need to do more research on other distributed databases to find out what's already available and what's novel.
Infogalactic was a wikipedia fork that had a more decidedly right-wing genesis. I don't know what it's been up to or if it even exists.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
Aren't there a few?