forgive me for being suspect about a random anti wikipedia website at a time when the right wing is spending billions to discredit and shut down wikipedia.
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
317 points (85.1% liked)
Technology
68723 readers
4368 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The issue that the article raises is legitimate, but actually looking through their archives is baffling, they're really just hellbent on shitting on WP. One of their most read articles says Wikipedia should attract more female editors by reducing the anonymity on the site and making it more like a social media platform. What the hell? https://wikipediocracy.com/why-women-have-no-time-for-wikipedia/
Ah yes, I'd love people online to be positive I'm a woman and not just probably one! That would make me feel extremely safe! I am being extremely sarcastic!
I like how you think ...
This is what the rich choose to do instead of compete in a free market
load more comments
(1 replies)
Do not go after Wikipedia because of one or two shitty people. We need it as a country. I would argue that the world needs it. Make it better and support it while calling out the shitty stuff, don't take it down.
What the world needs, what you need as a country, is for people to be a bit more discerning and conscious about the reliability of what they read online, and that includes not treating Wikipedia like holy scripture in the way that far too many people do.
The article is about protecting the integrity of Wikipedia from admins with ulterior motives. Regardless of the correctness of the article, "going after Wikipedia to take it down" does not describe the topic in the slightest. Why does this have so many upvotes? Are any of you even reading the linked article?
I was going off the comments in this thread at the time. The right wants wikipedia to go away.
To answer your question, It is safe to assume most people read the title and the abstract but don't actually read the article
Do go for the shitty admins with no mercy though. We don't need Wiki to slowly rot from the inside.
Why do US citizens think everyone on the internet is from their country ?
What part of their comment assumes that everyone else is from their country? I only see them referring to themselves and their own country.
If I said "we need public transit as a city" am I assuming that everyone lives in my city or am I simply talking about my own city? I don't see why this is any different and it seems very nitpicky.
If I said "we need public transit as a city" am I assuming that everyone lives in my city or am I simply talking about my own city?
I mean you meant the US, though, right?
Is it wrong to want to talk about the place you live in without telling people where you live? Should everyone be required to state the place they live in any time they talk about it? I don't really see what the problem is with speaking about your place of residence without revealing where you live. I don't get how not mentioning where you live means you assume everyone knows. Maybe you not knowing is intentional.
While I think it's annoying when people assume others live in the US, I think it's even more annoying to both assume people who don't mention where they live must live in the US and also assume they intended you to know that they live in the US.
I was just saying that way you said it does seem to assume others understood you're talking about the US. If you specify it ("we in the US") then that avoids the whole issue.
It's pedantic. At best because someone wants to virtue signal by tilting at windmills. At worst It's a bad faith argument being made to isolate someone. In both cases it's shite behavior:
An example would be assailing someone for not liking cookies when they simply said they enjoy cake. This tactic was originally used by trolls and hate groups to splinter larger social groups support structure and/or put people on the backfoot... It's become so commonplace people will do it just because the opportunity presents itself. Because someone else will if they don't, anyway. Might as well get the glory of taking someone down a peg.
It's pathetic. Op made an affirmative statement about something they believed in and was promptly shit on by some cunt who brought nothing meaningful to the table themselves. What's worse is the troll initially was getting nothing but positive reinforcement so they could go and do it again. Are we still enjoying all the polarizing "LOL [insert group] BAD!" It really brings the community together.
You don't need to engage every person doing that shit... but for fucks sake stop upvoting it and reinforcing the behavior.
If I said "we need public transit as a city" am I assuming that everyone lives in my city or am I simply talking about my own city?
That’s exactly what I would assume, because you’re talking like your city is the default and everyone knows which one you’re talking about.
talking like your city is the default and everyone knows which one you’re talking about.
Does this mean that everyone must always specify the geographic area they are from when they talk about it lest they risk being accused of assuming everyone knows? I often say that "we need public transit in my city" and it never once crossed my mind that other people would know or assume what city I'm referring to.
I still don't see how saying that you want x or y in your country is equivalent to talking like your community is the default.
I would totally agree if the statement was "we need x in my country and you all should vote for it" because that would be assuming everyone reading is able to participate and therefore lives there. But that's far from what the statement was, which made no assumptions and didn't even mention a country. All they said was that they want something in their country.
"We need this as a city" and "we need this in my city" have a different meaning imo. First one makes it sound like you're including us in your "we", as in the people in your city.
Doesn't "as a city" just tell you who the "we" refers to? As in "we, the people of our city, need x"? That's how I understand it.
Yes it does imo, and the "we" would include everyone else as part of that city, which is what bothers some people.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
It only takes a single incident like this for people to completely loose trust in Wikipedia, granted Wikipedia was already put to an insanely unreasonable standard.
Of course that's not true. A single incident on a massive website like this is not going to force people who actually trusted Wikipedia before to stop trusting it in the future.
Not really, but I am sick and tired of Wikipedia haters constantly using every tiny mistake to prove "Wikipedia cant be trusted". Granted they still use the age old lie of "anyone can edit it" and "nobody moderates it".
After finishing the PhD, I got emails from people saying that for money they would manage a Wikipedia article for me. They said they had people in high places to make that my article communicates the right message.
Dear ...,
Have you ever wondered of having a Wikipedia page for yourself or your company? We can help you get a Wikipedia page for yourself or your brand.
Why have a Wikipedia page?
Google loves Wikipedia and as such ranks it high in search results. Wikipedia is
also the first place people go when they Google your name. By leveraging
Wikipedia, you can help control your Online Profile and present yourself to the
world. Usually Wikipedia only accepts pages on celebrities and famous companies,
if you are looking to get one for yourself, we can help you with that. Having a page
for yourself in Wikipedia, brings you more credibility and makes you more
famous.
We have been editing on Wikipedia for 9+ years and We've created tons of pages
for companies, people, brands, products, and of course for academic purposes as
well.
We own multiple accounts on Wikipedia with page curation and new page
reviewer rights, so we can create and moderate pages with almost zero risk of
another mod taking it down.
There are few Wikipedia editors who are willing to create a page for money, and
most of them are scared to offer this service directly, so they do it through their
trusted sellers who mark up the price to $1500 - $2500 per page.
Because you're buying directly from an experienced Wikipedia editor and mod,
you'll get your page a lot cheaper, faster and with more reliability.
Let me know if you are interested.
Regards
I'm guessing how that goes is you pay them, they do actually make you a page, it gets quickly deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's standards, and then they go "sorry no refunds". Step 0 to getting a Wikipedia page about yourself is to be notable enough for one, which >99.9% of people are not.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
What does the PR acronym stand for ?
- Roman people
- pull request
- parliamentary report
- press release
- prize ring
- proportional representation
- Puerto Rico
- Permanent Resident
- Progress Report
- Pressure Regulator
- Park Ridge
- Pattern Recognition
- PageRank
- Planning and Responsibility
- Performance Review
- Performance Rating
- Problem Report
- Papa Roach
- Personal Record
- Peer Review
- ⁝
Tried to add that the (two) famous classic swedish films "sälskaps resan 1 & 2" were copies of the french Les Bronzés, and remove the "is on DVD for exceptionnally cheap".
Got reverted after like 1 minute.
Tried a bunch of times, complaints to no avail.
Some years later I tried again but you could no longer make changes IIRC.
Just checked, info still missing.
Edit: to all the doubtfully people, here is one reversed edit I aparently did in 2023: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A4llskapsresan&diff=prev&oldid=53585812 If someone lnows how to search for reversed edits ...
Edit: mer info på svenska: här
Edit: Some say the specialized "swedish" jokes in the film was stolen from a Finnish film mamed Callemoss.
I just checked the articles for "Sällskapsresan" and "French Fried Vacation". The only edit that was reverted (or at least the only edit whose author would've been notified by the revert) changed "Norwegian" to "German" on the former page. I also didn't find "is on DVD for exceptionally cheap" anywhere. None of these articles are protected (i.e. "locked") either. Which article did this happen on?
load more comments
(10 replies)
Ah, of course, I was looking at the English Wikipedia article. Still, the Swedish article mentions Les Bronzés, no?
Oh, you are right!
Likheter mellan Sällskapsresan och den franska filmen Les bronzés (1978) har påtalats
A meager note IMO, and not by me, but the truth is out there ^^
Thanks!
view more: next ›