The dependence on wikipedia

Aug 2019
218
North
Today Wikipedia is too wide to be moderated without automatisms and the team of Wiki focuses its attention on form and sources, to evaluate contents is almost impossible without a large [or huge!] crew of paid experts.
Sorry, but I think you aren't true. Maybe it's because you are wikipedian staff.
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,963
Romania
Theology and philosophy. I can't think of topics that are more arbitrary and have more of a motivation for people to fight over definitions etc. The reliability of wikipedia should not be judged based on how religious and philosophical pages are edited. Those are terrible fields to make this determination on.
"Arbitrary": arbitrary - Wiktionary, which is the meaning you have in mind when you call such topics as "arbitrary"?

If there are topics open to various interpretations it doesn't mean that they are open to arbitrary interpretations (that letting aside that the kind of articles which I offered as example have inaccurate information, not arbitrary)! OTOH I mentioned my main domain of interest because it is one to which I am the best acquainted re: Wikipedia, I didn't imply that my bad impression on Wikipedia is exclusively due to articles concerning that domain.
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,000
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Sorry, but I think you aren't true. Maybe it's because you are wikipedian staff.
Is it a persuasion? If not I'd like to know on which base you think "I'm not true".
Then ... when have I said to be "wikipedian staff"? I'm an author of Wikipedia, and not that active ... as you can guess I prefer to spend my time on Historum.

A part this, are you aware of the presence of a giant crew of experts checking the contents posted on Wiki? There is a team [less or more wide] aided by automatisms. Nothing else.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,000
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Well then, it is safe to question the integrity of those "experts".
There isn't a crew of experts to check the content of Wiki, this is what you don't grasp. I can read hieroglyphics and I edit pages on Wiki about Ancient Egypt ... substantially no one in Wiki team can check how I read hieroglyphics [a part some retired Egyptologists, but it's rare they are online]. But they don't have to. If after a translation of mine I add something like "as Petrie translated this inscription in XIX century", posting a link to Petrie's work about that location, they will simply accept my contribution.
 
Jun 2017
2,958
Connecticut
There isn't a crew of experts to check the content of Wiki, this is what you don't grasp. I can read hieroglyphics and I edit pages on Wiki about Ancient Egypt ... substantially no one in Wiki team can check how I read hieroglyphics [a part some retired Egyptologists, but it's rare they are online]. But they don't have to. If after a translation of mine I add something like "as Petrie translated this inscription in XIX century", posting a link to Petrie's work about that location, they will simply accept my contribution.
And that is why wiki is superior in terms of the scale of info it possesses. Its not a peer reviewed journal but if someone messes up you'd assume people who care about a given topic would fix it if said people cared enough to write the entry in the first place. When I called religion and philosophy arbitrary I meant these are topics where mistakes won't be quickly corrected because semantic battles in those subjects are unending.
 
Aug 2019
218
North
There isn't a crew of experts to check the content of Wiki, this is what you don't grasp. I can read hieroglyphics and I edit pages on Wiki about Ancient Egypt ... substantially no one in Wiki team can check how I read hieroglyphics [a part some retired Egyptologists, but it's rare they are online]. But they don't have to. If after a translation of mine I add something like "as Petrie translated this inscription in XIX century", posting a link to Petrie's work about that location, they will simply accept my contribution.
But there's the trouble with the information without links. And, the links themselves would need their meaning explained in greater detail. This wikipedia combines true and false, with the final product of the process being a lie (it's the oldest trick in the book). I'm talking about the southern balkans' history now.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2012
786
But there's the trouble with the information without links. And, the links themselves would need their meaning explained in greater detail. This wikipedia combines true and false, with the final product of the process being a lie (it's the oldest trick in the book). I'm talking about the southern balkans' history now.
Considering that the southern Balkans history is highly politicised subject, the wiki information should be taken with a pinch of salt. Do you have any examples of outright lies?
 
Aug 2019
218
North
Considering that the southern Balkans history is highly politicised subject, the wiki information should be taken with a pinch of salt. Do you have any examples of outright lies?
It seemed that in the not so distant past wikipedians were at least - trying - to be objective.