Brexit
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:13 pm
I don't normally comment on the startlingly obvious fact that Wikipedia is shit at being what it claims to be, namely an encyclopedia, or even more broady, as a useful source of information (the people who claim Wikipedia's true purpose is merely as a container for links and pointers for where to look for information, need to really fuck off, I have Google for that, and years of experiences shows it even sucks at that).
I like to focus on the reasons why it is shit, which invariably comes down to one thing - Wikipedians are by and large, ignorant, stupid, lazy or corrupt, and other than destroying the business model of more reliable sources and destroying the life force of gifted amateurs who do not choose to assimilate, so that the world has no choice but to improve it, nothing in the Wikipedia model exists that can correct for this resource problem.
Today is different. Today is one of those days where a perfect example of showing how monumentally shit it all is, lands in your lap. Yesterday the British government suffered the worst ever defeat a government has ever suffered in the House of Commons. Big enough news that you may even have heard about it in Trumpistan.
Related post.....
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 7977#p7977
The tortuous journey you have to go on to get any information about this important issue, if your chosen information provider is Wikipedia, is laughable. There are the usual issues, it is near impossible to find the relevant article, information is patchy, disorganised, incomplete, out of date, and this specific case, as is a historical flaw of Wikipedia, massively biased towards reflecting what Irish nationalists deem important, almost to the exclusion of everything else.
The main Brexit article, the obvious starting point for those not wanting to play the always disappointing game of Wikipedia search box lottery, is no different. Readers looking for information on this stage of the process in that giant page, are inevitably disappointed by what purports to be the relevant section, and then distracted and soon lost as they seek where to go next, or ascertain if the rest of the article answers their questions, and are eventually unable to remember even why they loaded the article in the first place. They leave, awestruck at the power of Irish nationalists to make everything be about them.
As always in these situations, the advice remains unchanged. Do not even bother to consult Wikipedia. If you ever need to know what is going on in this green and present land, both for the basic factual news and the inevitable issue of who thinks what about it, including the Irish nationalist view presented with due weight, as well as all the historical context you could need to understand it, you need only consult the good old BBC.
As a starting point and accessible overview, the BBC suffices for all consumers. As a comprehensive summary, I certainly find no issues, and even if there are, they would pale compared to Wikipedia. As a pointer to where to look for further information, directly through links or indirectly through precision, including linking to primary source documents, it is excellent. That is a good point to highlight the fact that the 585 page draft agreement isn't even presented in the Wikipedia article I am forced to presume is the relevant article explaining this issue, as an "External Link" or "Further Reading". Indeed it isn't linked at all, not even mistakenly as a reference, as often happens.
Maybe if the USA had an equivalent of the BBC, a state funded but politically independent provider of content for the purposes of informing and educating the public, with a clear remit to neutrality, then maybe Wikipedia would never have been invented? Something to think about.
As proven with this high profile example, Wikipedia is, and remains, shit. Even on issues of huge importance and where there is wide demand for information on both the historical context and the current state of play. The exact conditions where Wikipedia's model is meant to thrive. Wikipedia is not meant to be a newspaper, but it wholeheartedly embraces the idea it can and should be a rapid conveyor of significant information of lasting importance, alongside historical context and other relevant background.
Oh, and you may not have noticed, but Wikipedia is eighteen years old. Oddly enough, nobody seems to want to even try to suggest this means it has matured into adulthood. What it does signify, is that there is a generation out there who have grown up thinking Wikipedia is information. It is not. It is a pile of garbage, guaranteed only to confuse and disappoint.
It needs to get into the sea.
HTD.
I like to focus on the reasons why it is shit, which invariably comes down to one thing - Wikipedians are by and large, ignorant, stupid, lazy or corrupt, and other than destroying the business model of more reliable sources and destroying the life force of gifted amateurs who do not choose to assimilate, so that the world has no choice but to improve it, nothing in the Wikipedia model exists that can correct for this resource problem.
Today is different. Today is one of those days where a perfect example of showing how monumentally shit it all is, lands in your lap. Yesterday the British government suffered the worst ever defeat a government has ever suffered in the House of Commons. Big enough news that you may even have heard about it in Trumpistan.
Related post.....
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 7977#p7977
The tortuous journey you have to go on to get any information about this important issue, if your chosen information provider is Wikipedia, is laughable. There are the usual issues, it is near impossible to find the relevant article, information is patchy, disorganised, incomplete, out of date, and this specific case, as is a historical flaw of Wikipedia, massively biased towards reflecting what Irish nationalists deem important, almost to the exclusion of everything else.
The main Brexit article, the obvious starting point for those not wanting to play the always disappointing game of Wikipedia search box lottery, is no different. Readers looking for information on this stage of the process in that giant page, are inevitably disappointed by what purports to be the relevant section, and then distracted and soon lost as they seek where to go next, or ascertain if the rest of the article answers their questions, and are eventually unable to remember even why they loaded the article in the first place. They leave, awestruck at the power of Irish nationalists to make everything be about them.
As always in these situations, the advice remains unchanged. Do not even bother to consult Wikipedia. If you ever need to know what is going on in this green and present land, both for the basic factual news and the inevitable issue of who thinks what about it, including the Irish nationalist view presented with due weight, as well as all the historical context you could need to understand it, you need only consult the good old BBC.
As a starting point and accessible overview, the BBC suffices for all consumers. As a comprehensive summary, I certainly find no issues, and even if there are, they would pale compared to Wikipedia. As a pointer to where to look for further information, directly through links or indirectly through precision, including linking to primary source documents, it is excellent. That is a good point to highlight the fact that the 585 page draft agreement isn't even presented in the Wikipedia article I am forced to presume is the relevant article explaining this issue, as an "External Link" or "Further Reading". Indeed it isn't linked at all, not even mistakenly as a reference, as often happens.
Maybe if the USA had an equivalent of the BBC, a state funded but politically independent provider of content for the purposes of informing and educating the public, with a clear remit to neutrality, then maybe Wikipedia would never have been invented? Something to think about.
As proven with this high profile example, Wikipedia is, and remains, shit. Even on issues of huge importance and where there is wide demand for information on both the historical context and the current state of play. The exact conditions where Wikipedia's model is meant to thrive. Wikipedia is not meant to be a newspaper, but it wholeheartedly embraces the idea it can and should be a rapid conveyor of significant information of lasting importance, alongside historical context and other relevant background.
Oh, and you may not have noticed, but Wikipedia is eighteen years old. Oddly enough, nobody seems to want to even try to suggest this means it has matured into adulthood. What it does signify, is that there is a generation out there who have grown up thinking Wikipedia is information. It is not. It is a pile of garbage, guaranteed only to confuse and disappoint.
It needs to get into the sea.
HTD.