I spent a long time believing that Wikipedia was the encyclopaedia anyone could edit and a much longer time leading a doomed campaign to try to get it to stick to the principals it says it has. This culminated in an eventually banning for actual (though oddly predictive) vandalism: replacing a random article on Radiohead with the lyrics to a song by 60s protest singer Michelle Shocked the murder of a young black graffiti artist in front of witnesses (the post and the timing are a matter of public record...).
Upon my return and a few anonymous, minor, fairly innocuous fixes I noticed that the reason I'd become angry was because I'd believed their bullshit, which they themselves may or may not have believed, for varying reasons. I thought they *should* be better than other people just because they tell people they are. What I then realised, was that in all their flawed sourcing, begging letters and insider decisions about who is and isn't allowed to write and edit articles in any meaningful way, they are no different than, say, The Guardian, or Breitbart. All of whom make similarly ridiculously unfounded claims about their worth when cupping their hands for the shekels.
Once you realise that Wikipedia are not better, or really worse, than any other news organisation, you're free to go about your day, safe in the knowledge that you actually get paid well for the stuff you do well, and that if assholes want to contribute to a circus for free, anyone with intellect will treat them as only one of many points of data, and make up their own mind from there.
Wikipedia are just like any other news source: change my mind
-
- Sucks
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:03 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
-
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
- Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
- Has thanked: 109 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Re: Wikipedia are just like any other news source: change my mind
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.
-
- Sucks
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:03 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Wikipedia are just like any other news source: change my mind
I was with you and nodding sagely throughout this until I got to the idea that the news media are nothing but propoganda. Imo they are people, people with jobs and interests which often conflict with them telling the truth. Wikipedia is particularly bad because people lie about having paid jobs editing it. You made a good video, but I switched off when you said that. It seemed to fail in going beyond a certain level of analysis.