Wikipedia co-founder says Wikipedia's no longer trustworthy.

[Don]

... For example, my Wikipedia page (which I didn't create) contains
partial truths while simultaneously infused with an obvious attempt
to frame me as somebody I am not. I once attempted to correct it
but my edits were reverted and I was, hilariously, sent a warning
about 'vandalising the page'. ...

Larry versus Wikipedia

He argues that Wikipedia has a dominant role in shaping public
opinion and that it has morphed into a tool that promotes
establishment narratives on most things, thus stifling knowledge.

Knowledge is power.
- Francis Bacon

He isn’t wrong.

It’s become a cesspit of ideological biases.

Thankfully, Wikipedia has an article on whether or not Wikipedia
has ideological biases and Wikipedia has determined that Wikipedia
does not have ideological biases.

<https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/larry-sanger-wikipedia>

# # #

As an aside allow me to note the quote attributed to the great
phrasemaker - science fiction author Francis Bacon - who wrote
_New Atlantis_ and also procreated scientism as an Anglo religious
belief centuries before Hubbard invented Dianetics.

<https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781138400122-8/francis-bacon-progenitor-scientism-1561–1626-1-bartley-stephen-kresge>

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

[Blueshirt]

Post by Don
... For example, my Wikipedia page (which I didn't create)
contains partial truths while simultaneously infused with an
obvious attempt to frame me as somebody I am not. I once
attempted to correct it but my edits were reverted and I was,
hilariously, sent a warning about 'vandalising the page'. ...
Larry versus Wikipedia
He argues that Wikipedia has a dominant role in shaping public
opinion and that it has morphed into a tool that promotes
establishment narratives on most things, thus stifling
knowledge.
Knowledge is power.
- Francis Bacon
He isn't wrong.
It's become a cesspit of ideological biases.

I have to challenge the term "no longer"! ;-)

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Blueshirt

Post by Don
... For example, my Wikipedia page (which I didn't create)
contains partial truths while simultaneously infused with an
obvious attempt to frame me as somebody I am not. I once
attempted to correct it but my edits were reverted and I was,
hilariously, sent a warning about 'vandalising the page'. ...
Larry versus Wikipedia
He argues that Wikipedia has a dominant role in shaping public
opinion and that it has morphed into a tool that promotes
establishment narratives on most things, thus stifling
knowledge.
Knowledge is power.
- Francis Bacon
He isn't wrong.
It's become a cesspit of ideological biases.

I have to challenge the term "no longer"! ;-)

That appears to leave "Wikipedia's trustworthy."

I use it, while feeling s need to stay alert.

[Charles Packer]

Post by Don
... For example, my Wikipedia page (which I didn't create) contains
partial truths while simultaneously infused with an obvious attempt
to frame me as somebody I am not. I once attempted to correct it but
my edits were reverted and I was, hilariously, sent a warning about
'vandalising the page'. ...
Larry versus Wikipedia
He argues that Wikipedia has a dominant role in shaping public
opinion and that it has morphed into a tool that promotes
establishment narratives on most things, thus stifling knowledge.
Knowledge is power.
- Francis Bacon
He isn’t wrong.
It’s become a cesspit of ideological biases.
Thankfully, Wikipedia has an article on whether or not Wikipedia has
ideological biases and Wikipedia has determined that Wikipedia does
not have ideological biases.
<https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/larry-sanger-wikipedia>
# # #

Gosh, I depend on Wikipedia for supplemental information about all
the SF I read about in this newsgroup. In that connection, I'm
curious to know how many readers herein have edited Wikipedia
pages.

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Don
... For example, my Wikipedia page (which I didn't create) contains
partial truths while simultaneously infused with an obvious attempt
to frame me as somebody I am not. I once attempted to correct it but
my edits were reverted and I was, hilariously, sent a warning about
'vandalising the page'. ...
Larry versus Wikipedia
He argues that Wikipedia has a dominant role in shaping public
opinion and that it has morphed into a tool that promotes
establishment narratives on most things, thus stifling knowledge.
Knowledge is power.
- Francis Bacon
He isn’t wrong.
It’s become a cesspit of ideological biases.
Thankfully, Wikipedia has an article on whether or not Wikipedia has
ideological biases and Wikipedia has determined that Wikipedia does
not have ideological biases.
<https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/larry-sanger-wikipedia>
# # #

Gosh, I depend on Wikipedia for supplemental information about all
the SF I read about in this newsgroup. In that connection, I'm
curious to know how many readers herein have edited Wikipedia
pages.

I wrote/rewrote dozens of Wikipedia articles in the mid-2000s, but
eventually gave up. Trying to keep articles accurate and coherent became
too time-consuming after a while and I decided to concentrate on the
ISFDB database.

Here is one example. Back in 2006 Richard Hershberger, who has published
books and articles on the evolution of baseball
(https://sabr.org/authors/richard-hershberger/ and
https://www.amazon.com/Strike-Four-Evolution-Richard-Hershberger/dp/153812114X),
wrote on rec.arts.sf.written:

"The [Wikipedia] article on "Minor league baseball" (not to be confused
with the article on "Minor League Baseball") started out life with two
paragraphs on the history of the minor leagues. They were actually a
pretty reasonable two paragraphs. Gradually a third paragraph developed,
and it was a bit incoherent but still not awful. Then someone did a
complete re-write of the history portion, replacing the three paragraphs
with essentially a series of bullet points. Apart from any question of
optimal formatting, the actual factual statements were largely fantasy:
someone's idea of how minor league baseball might have developed, not
having anything to do with what actually happened."

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Ahasuerus
I wrote/rewrote dozens of Wikipedia articles in the mid-2000s, but
eventually gave up. Trying to keep articles accurate and coherent became
too time-consuming after a while and I decided to concentrate on the
ISFDB database.

Me too. I would edit technical articles on electromagnetism and then come
back to find that they had been edited to remove technical information
which was replaced with information about how electromagnetism works
in the Superman universe. I just don't have time to deal with that.
--scott

[D]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Ahasuerus
I wrote/rewrote dozens of Wikipedia articles in the mid-2000s, but
eventually gave up. Trying to keep articles accurate and coherent became
too time-consuming after a while and I decided to concentrate on the
ISFDB database.

Me too. I would edit technical articles on electromagnetism and then come
back to find that they had been edited to remove technical information
which was replaced with information about how electromagnetism works
in the Superman universe. I just don't have time to deal with that.
--scott

I had a look at https://www.britannica.com/ the other day and the quality
of that article compared with the one on wikipedia was amazing! Wikipedia
for me is more entertainment, but I've made a mental note to check out
britannica for more serious stuff.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by D

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Ahasuerus
I wrote/rewrote dozens of Wikipedia articles in the mid-2000s, but
eventually gave up. Trying to keep articles accurate and coherent became
too time-consuming after a while and I decided to concentrate on the
ISFDB database.

Me too. I would edit technical articles on electromagnetism and then come
back to find that they had been edited to remove technical information
which was replaced with information about how electromagnetism works
in the Superman universe. I just don't have time to deal with that.
--scott

I had a look at https://www.britannica.com/ the other day and the quality
of that article compared with the one on wikipedia was amazing! Wikipedia
for me is more entertainment, but I've made a mental note to check out
britannica for more serious stuff.

Wikipedia is a reasonably good source for original sources.

Otherwise, it is crowd sourced term paper.

[Kevrob]

Post by Charles Packer
Gosh, I depend on Wikipedia for supplemental information about all
the SF I read about in this newsgroup. In that connection, I'm
curious to know how many readers herein have edited Wikipedia
pages.

I know "Orange Mike" Lowrey had reached admin status with the Wiki,
acc to Fancyclopedia.


https://fancyclopedia.org/%22Orange_Mike%22_Lowrey

I wrote/rewrote dozens of Wikipedia articles...

[snip]

I've only made a handful of minor edits, or comments on the Talk page.

I can't seeing "in Long Island" when it should be "on Long Island."

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Don
... For example, my Wikipedia page (which I didn't create) contains
partial truths while simultaneously infused with an obvious attempt
to frame me as somebody I am not. I once attempted to correct it but
my edits were reverted and I was, hilariously, sent a warning about
'vandalising the page'. ...
Larry versus Wikipedia
He argues that Wikipedia has a dominant role in shaping public
opinion and that it has morphed into a tool that promotes
establishment narratives on most things, thus stifling knowledge.
Knowledge is power.
- Francis Bacon
He isn’t wrong.
It’s become a cesspit of ideological biases.
Thankfully, Wikipedia has an article on whether or not Wikipedia has
ideological biases and Wikipedia has determined that Wikipedia does
not have ideological biases.
<https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/larry-sanger-wikipedia>
# # #

Gosh, I depend on Wikipedia for supplemental information about all
the SF I read about in this newsgroup. In that connection, I'm
curious to know how many readers herein have edited Wikipedia
pages.

I've done a little. Are we being insulted?

[D]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Don
... For example, my Wikipedia page (which I didn't create) contains
partial truths while simultaneously infused with an obvious attempt
to frame me as somebody I am not. I once attempted to correct it but
my edits were reverted and I was, hilariously, sent a warning about
'vandalising the page'. ...
Larry versus Wikipedia
He argues that Wikipedia has a dominant role in shaping public
opinion and that it has morphed into a tool that promotes
establishment narratives on most things, thus stifling knowledge.
Knowledge is power.
- Francis Bacon
He isn’t wrong.
It’s become a cesspit of ideological biases.
Thankfully, Wikipedia has an article on whether or not Wikipedia has
ideological biases and Wikipedia has determined that Wikipedia does
not have ideological biases.
<https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/larry-sanger-wikipedia>
# # #

Gosh, I depend on Wikipedia for supplemental information about all
the SF I read about in this newsgroup. In that connection, I'm
curious to know how many readers herein have edited Wikipedia
pages.

I've done a little. Are we being insulted?

I once added a dot missing from a sentence. The change was accepted. Then,
as an experience, I tried to add a new school/ism of architecture but that
was rejected.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Charles Packer
Gosh, I depend on Wikipedia for supplemental information about all
the SF I read about in this newsgroup. In that connection, I'm
curious to know how many readers herein have edited Wikipedia
pages.

I did quite a lot, and would do more if they didn't have a global
block on Hurricane Electric IPv6 customers.

My editing did slow down quite a bit when Wikipedia became less of a
free-for-all and more rule-bound. Over the past 15 years the number
of different content rules has gotten to the point that it's often not
worth the hassle of fixing things beyond minor copyediting. Unpopular
pages have glaring errors that just get ignored for years (and by
"glaring" I mean things like "the facility was renamed five years
ago") and a combination of content policies makes it difficult to
restructure seven paragraphs of proseline citing corporate press
releases into a coherent two paragraphs of relevant history. (And of
course that's not getting into the whole recency bias issue.)

-GAWollman

[Don]

Post by Charles Packer
Gosh, I depend on Wikipedia for supplemental information about all
the SF I read about in this newsgroup. In that connection, I'm
curious to know how many readers herein have edited Wikipedia
pages.

I edited the page about Roger Water's album Radio KAOS, because the
original description of the album cover made a bad assumption about
what the last two characters of the Morse code on the cover meant (the
original author didn't realize the code was continued on the back
cover and just guessed incorrectly what the final "TH" on the front
meant).
Almost immediately someone decided they had to re-write what I had
written. At least the correct information is still there, but it now
has a couple grammatical errors and is repetitive and badly presented.

Waters is a bad fit for the establishment narrative because he keeps
getting its occult "power to truth" axiom backwards.

Danke,

[Mad Hamish]

Post by Don

Post by Charles Packer
Gosh, I depend on Wikipedia for supplemental information about all
the SF I read about in this newsgroup. In that connection, I'm
curious to know how many readers herein have edited Wikipedia
pages.

I edited the page about Roger Water's album Radio KAOS, because the
original description of the album cover made a bad assumption about
what the last two characters of the Morse code on the cover meant (the
original author didn't realize the code was continued on the back
cover and just guessed incorrectly what the final "TH" on the front
meant).
Almost immediately someone decided they had to re-write what I had
written. At least the correct information is still there, but it now
has a couple grammatical errors and is repetitive and badly presented.

Waters is a bad fit for the establishment narrative because he keeps
getting its occult "power to truth" axiom backwards.

For very approximate values of "truth", as in "complete bullshit"

[Don]

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Don

Post by Charles Packer
Gosh, I depend on Wikipedia for supplemental information about all
the SF I read about in this newsgroup. In that connection, I'm
curious to know how many readers herein have edited Wikipedia
pages.

I edited the page about Roger Water's album Radio KAOS, because the
original description of the album cover made a bad assumption about
what the last two characters of the Morse code on the cover meant (the
original author didn't realize the code was continued on the back
cover and just guessed incorrectly what the final "TH" on the front
meant).
Almost immediately someone decided they had to re-write what I had
written. At least the correct information is still there, but it now
has a couple grammatical errors and is repetitive and badly presented.

Waters is a bad fit for the establishment narrative because he keeps
getting its occult "power to truth" axiom backwards.

For very approximate values of "truth", as in "complete bullshit"

What's your impression of this guy?

Charles' First Address as King
2023-12-13
He name-drops Shakespeare Within 30 Seconds!!! Shakespeare is
Central To The British Empire. Bacon Planned It That Way.

Those Who Tell The Stories Rule Society ~ Plato.

Bacon Was Heavily Involved With Espionage And Intelligence His
Entire Life.

<https://vimeo.com/749944314/09bd3cbf15?share=copy>

<https://thehiddenlifeisbest.com/post/charles-first-address-as-king/blog>

Danke,