Why Conservatives Are Attacking 'Wokepedia'(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Why Conservatives Are Attacking 'Wokepedia'
https://www.wsj.com/tech/wikipedia-conservative-complaints-ee904b0b
11 comments
I hate to lose faith, but given the war conservatives so far have handled protecting free speech and cancel culture in this administration, I’m not hopeful that they truly want to bring objectivity to Wikipedia.
I think it should be possible to disagree with some of Wikipedia's editorial outcomes, processes, aspects of this administration or any other politician. We shouldn't dismiss the possibility that Wikipedia has problems as well as partisan politics. We definitely shouldn't dismiss that combination with even more partisan generalization.
You're allowed to disagree, if you're specific. The parent comment cited two examples of the current admin fumbling online decorum. Do you have any examples of damages from Wikipedia's misconduct?
Even outside of the highly politicized articles, the tendency for editors to claim articles as their personal fiefdoms and engage in petty edit wars is illustrative. Even if you feel that Wikipedia's stance is normative in the partisan sense, reasonable people should be able to see how the aforementioned dynamic interacts with the highly charged partisan environment we find ourselves in.
Yes, the current administration has issues. However, when we look at the numerous issues around previous administrations, such as the Disinformation Governance Board or the WH's directing social media companies to censor users, they are hardly new or distinct. Disregard for individual liberty is the norm. In fact, the opposition frequently celebrates what they dictate as "collective good" over the remaining notions of individual rights.
Partisans choose to engage in selective outrage.
The current issues are continuations of the trend. We see this in the rationalizations of the current partisans. School yard favorites, such as "They started it" and end-justify-the-means, "If we don't abandon the principles of free speech, we are at a disadvantage to our unprincipled opponents" are used to rationalize this behavior. Meanwhile, the principled remnant are castigated as weak, anti-maga turncoats.
Finally, the assertion around "objectivity" is either a misuse of language or a misunderstanding of basic premises. Objective truth may exist in nature, but we experience it subjectively. Further down the chain, we are able to use our limited facilities to describe it. We frequently make mistakes in both perception and description. In the case of Wikipedia, the results are of an even lower tier, as we can only describe what other, frequently partisan sources have previously described. Then there is the contentious issue of which sources are acceptable for Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources".
Yes, the current administration has issues. However, when we look at the numerous issues around previous administrations, such as the Disinformation Governance Board or the WH's directing social media companies to censor users, they are hardly new or distinct. Disregard for individual liberty is the norm. In fact, the opposition frequently celebrates what they dictate as "collective good" over the remaining notions of individual rights.
Partisans choose to engage in selective outrage.
The current issues are continuations of the trend. We see this in the rationalizations of the current partisans. School yard favorites, such as "They started it" and end-justify-the-means, "If we don't abandon the principles of free speech, we are at a disadvantage to our unprincipled opponents" are used to rationalize this behavior. Meanwhile, the principled remnant are castigated as weak, anti-maga turncoats.
Finally, the assertion around "objectivity" is either a misuse of language or a misunderstanding of basic premises. Objective truth may exist in nature, but we experience it subjectively. Further down the chain, we are able to use our limited facilities to describe it. We frequently make mistakes in both perception and description. In the case of Wikipedia, the results are of an even lower tier, as we can only describe what other, frequently partisan sources have previously described. Then there is the contentious issue of which sources are acceptable for Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources".
You're still 0 - 2 on actual citations. Examples?
And you've yet to engage with the substance of the discussion. If you had bothered you'd have some appreciation of what I've expressed. Specifically, the futility of engaging in a partisan back and forth over perceptions of bias in specific articles. If you are interested in that kind of content, a simple Google search will suffice.
I’m not dismissing that possibility, I’m dismissing the desire to move governance from the current organization that makes mistakes to one that desires intentional bias and unilateral control.
Wikipedia's bias is the result of a deliberate long term campaign to make it biased. It's not "mistakes".
I mean it's very lopsided in the sources it accepts.
Huffing Post and Jezebel are acceptable sources?!?
Huffing Post and Jezebel are acceptable sources?!?
Enable "show dead" in your HN profile settings to observe this discrepancy:
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=jacobin.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=mises.org
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=jacobin.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=mises.org
What data point are we using to suggest Huffington Post and jezebel are unreliable, is there a third party fact checking or ratings agency they should use to determine they are unacceptable?