Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Feb-2025 14:23:24 JST Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
   This is the problem with #Wikipedia.
   
   It makes a factual claim, because a source deemed "reputable" says so.
   
   Then, someone in the talk page straight up proves it to be wrong. And what happens?
   
   Editor says "your proof is convincing, but it's original research, therefore we cannot use it."
   
   And the falsehood remains on Wikipedia for 7 more years after that; still counting.
   
   (It's not seen in the screenshot, but I've checked in the history; the proof was posted in 2018.)
   
   Sure, just an obscure topic in this case; who cares who coined the term "open source" anyway.
   
   But what do you do when "reputable" media publishes falsehoods on more important topics? It's not like this doesn't happen.
   
   Wikipedians could defend themselves by saying "it's the media's fault; we merely sum up the information that comes from them." But that's a shitty defense.
   
   You've set up your rules so that STRAIGHT UP PROVING something to be wrong doesn't count on your website. AND these potentially false (even KNOWN to be false) claims are made in a factual, encyclopedic tone.
   
   Worse yet, you curate a list of outlets in your rule book that are considered reputable or not, based on guess what. The original research of Wikipedians.
   
   Either use more honest wording, saying "media outlet X claims..." or allow original research to count for *something*.
   
   The way Wikipedia is structured right now, it often just functions as a propaganda machine: Declare certain people and organizations to be authority, and repeat their claims in a factual, seemingly objective tone, pretending like it's proven facts, even if the opposite is the case.
   
   There's actually a rule on Wikipedia saying "use common sense" but I guess nobody cares about it.
   • 翠星石 and snacks like this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Feb-2025 14:27:37 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @taylan I don't even get media sources - many media sites lie.
     
     You may not want to accept research that cannot be replicated, but 9 good sources that anyone can check is much better than a media article.
     
     I've noticed a lot of proprietary rot in Wikipedia, but when you check the sources, the sources aren't rotted and someone else has put their proprietary opinion in.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Feb-2025 22:07:59 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • GNU/Gabi
     @gabi >I suppose and hope that this proprietary opinion comes from the same proprietary idiot.
     It's a group of freedom haters who understand very well the damage caused by referring to GNU as "Linux".
   • Embed this notice
     GNU/Gabi (gabi@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Feb-2025 22:08:01 JST GNU/Gabi

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki @taylan
     >I've noticed a lot of proprietary rot in Wikipedia, but when you check the sources, the sources aren't rotted and someone else has put their proprietary opinion in
     Indeed. I have read several times in the discussions on Wikipedia about articles related to free software that the use of the term "GNU/Linux" to refer to the GNU operating system is, at least, a debatable topic. It is argued that the "neutral term Linux" should be used to refer to the operating system, as otherwise it could be interpreted as taking sides. I suppose and hope that this proprietary opinion comes from the same proprietary idiot.
     
     They sometimes just blatantly lie. For example, they use photographs of foods in articles that do not correspond to the same products (e.g., a photo of a corndog in an article about a panchuque). Although the panchuque can be considered a variation of a corndog, the caption of the photograph states "a panchuque".
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Feb-2025 22:08:50 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • GNU/Gabi
     @gabi >I suppose and hope that this proprietary opinion comes from the same proprietary idiot.
     It's a group of freedom haters who understand very well the damage caused by referring to GNU as "Linux".
     
     If only they knew that wikipedia was meant to be a free encyclopedia, not a nonfree one.