Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B
Posts
0
Comments
907
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date

    How did you determine that?

    Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.

    True, but basically nobody does check that the sources are valid, and they often aren't.

  • A lot of western liberals really do treat it like the Holy Scripture. Any intelligence agencies would just have to pay a few admins and higher some people to sculpt the list of "reliable sources" that Wikipedia uses and they can basically fully control what hundreds of millions of neoliberals believe.

    And they have.

  • Here you go, Would you like me to cut your food for you too?

  • Here you go, Would you like me to cut your food for you too?

  • Wikipedia has a giant article regurgitating the false claims from the extremist Falun Gong cult that China is stealing their organs.

  • Why would wikipedia of all things be your go to for that?

  • They don't really think that, but they're willing to lie about it to defend their team

  • and Wikipedia is not even in the top 1000 of disinformation peddlers.

    And you determined this how?

    They make mistakes, but they aren’t literally lying and propagandizing millions of people on purpose.

    And you determined this how?

  • Then information hygiene went to shit. Now it’s a rare oasis in the current landscape.

    It went to shit because people started treating low quality sources like Wikipedia as "a rare oasis".

    The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is not the source of misinformation/disinformation in this world.

    Are you sure about that?

  • What I meant was that my question wasn’t about how to distinguish between reputable and unreliable sources – I think most Lemmy users are capable of doing that.

    Well that makes one of us. My experience is that most Lemmy users think Wikipedia was written by God himself.

  • It’s not of course, but it’s a good start. Certainly good enough to use as a quick but fallible reference:

    No, it really isn't. The fact that Wikipedia has been arbitrarily vested with such supreme authority to be the default source of truth by so many people is a big part of why misinformation is so common. Back in my day, even high schoolers were taught not to do that.

  • The fact that you said you're concerned with verifying information

  • Yeah, western right wing neoliberal misinformation only.

  • How are you going to counter misinformation if you can't determine what is and isn't misinformation?

  • Wikipedia and podcast/interviews

    If you're want to know how misinformation got so prominent, look at this as a good start.

  • Anything politically motivated is likely a shill

    Do you apply this to any political content? Or just politics you disagree with?

  • we can start demanding that social media moderators (or whatever passes for those in any given site) prevent misinformation as much as possible.

    Yeah, but how are you expecting moderators to determine what is and isn't misinformation?

  • Note that Wikipedia is not a proper source.

  • bad (eg not recommended by Wikipedia)

    If you want to know why misinformation is so prominent, the fact that you think this is a good standard is a big part of it.

    Step 1 is teaching journalism and social media hygiene as a dedicated class in school

    And will those classes be teaching "Wikipedia is the indisputable rock of factuality, the holy Scripture from which truth flows"?