I am a self proclaimed wiki-phile, I always donated when I could. It was kind of like going to the library without the fresh book smell.

  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Elon Musk and his cult followers are getting pissy with and declaring war on Wikipedia because they think it’s biased against them. So basically, Wikipedia is being dragged into this right wing culture war.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    If you’re seeing hate at wikipedia it is manufactured by Elon Musk.

    Someone Luigi this fuck already.

    • poo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Agreed, but watch out, Lemmy.World has some super shitty bootlicking mods going around deleting any comment that insinuate Musk should have anything less than a perfectly healthy long life. Thinking of switching instances because this one is failing lol.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Nothing changed at Wikipedia but FOX told me it was WOKE!

    -People who Do Their Own Research!

  • Taleya
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    People who are inconvenienced by facts and reality are trying to start a war against them

  • Joshi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Hate for Wikipedia comes from a few places.

    The first and most important is that most people who have tried to edit Wikipedia have their first edit reverted, usually with good reason, because they don’t understand the procedures and policies. Unfortunately these procedures and policies are what maintains high quality.

    Related is news articles and blogs about edit wars and less frequently that an article or group of articles is genuinely captured by one volunteer who will protect their own little fiefdoms and not allow anyone else to edit them. This happens but it’s pretty uncommon and the structure of Wikipedia means that it only really stands on fairly obscure articles.

    It’s also true that Wikipedia does have an inherent western liberal bias. It’s subtle but it is there and results from the fact that for the majority of Wikipedia editors western liberalism is the water they swim in. Any claim that is counter to this ideology needs to be cited up the wazoo whereas claims that are confidant with it will often slide without citation. Those with a strong attachment to an alternative ideology often find it infuriating.

    Finally there are individuals who would rather have the arbiter of truth be the powerful rather than a relatively democratic institution.

    All that said Wikipedia is a remarkable achievement and an invaluable part of the internet.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Which “bunch of people”? Question is way too vague to answer meaningfully, there are many people who have one reason or another to hate Wikipedia.

  • Kaboom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    For a very long time now, they’ve been great about the more technical topics. But for a lot of the more political articles, they’ve been questionable. Bad sources, saying that sources say things that the sources don’t actually say, leaving out important information, framing things in odd ways. Bunch of dumb drama and edit wars. Heck, even one of the founders left over it.

    That, and they solicite donations without telling people where that money is going. I don’t mind keeping the servers running or paying volunteers, but why did they give 5 million to “anonymous”?

    https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/why-does-wikipedia-need-donations-despite-its-massive-popularity-123100400249_1.html

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Wiki has been cooped by the US regime but that’s gonna happen…

    What you are talking about is President Musk trying to destroy it as a viable information source that at least pretends to have standards. He wants wiki to be similar to fox news.

    Hold the line!

  • nesc@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Wikipedia is captured by people who value procedure more than fact, they will revert, delete, lock pages if you did something not the way this specific person with a lot of time and clout likes.

    There are also examples of unpunished retaliation against people that tried to do something about it.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I don’t doubt there are examples of volunteers reverting changes made by other volunteers. Saying it’s captured is ridiculous. Wikipedia is an immense source of shared value. I’d need much more specific evidence before dismissing it, and frankly I don’t expect anyone has such evidence.

      • nesc@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        There is nothing ridiculous about it, they even have specific terms for countless abuses by “senior editors”, e.g. wikilawyer, content authoritharian you can look it up. Their policy was/is “Verifiability, not truth”. As for evidence, there is plenty:

        Tap for spoiler

        Well, you were going to dismiss whatever I will link you, so there were no point in providing links