Post ArTgaqGfkePoVkmTCa by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
(DIR) More posts by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
(DIR) Post #ArS96fG4T9chwojbHM by taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org
2025-02-24T17:19:46.250052Z
6 likes, 4 repeats
This is the problem with #Wikipedia.It makes a factual claim, because a source deemed "reputable" says so.Then, someone in the talk page straight up proves it to be wrong. And what happens?Editor says "your proof is convincing, but it's original research, therefore we cannot use it."And the falsehood remains on Wikipedia for 7 more years after that; still counting.(It's not seen in the screenshot, but I've checked in the history; the proof was posted in 2018.)Sure, just an obscure topic in this case; who cares who coined the term "open source" anyway.But what do you do when "reputable" media publishes falsehoods on more important topics? It's not like this doesn't happen.Wikipedians could defend themselves by saying "it's the media's fault; we merely sum up the information that comes from them." But that's a shitty defense.You've set up your rules so that STRAIGHT UP PROVING something to be wrong doesn't count on your website. AND these potentially false (even KNOWN to be false) claims are made in a factual, encyclopedic tone.Worse yet, you curate a list of outlets in your rule book that are considered reputable or not, based on guess what. The original research of Wikipedians.Either use more honest wording, saying "media outlet X claims..." or allow original research to count for *something*.The way Wikipedia is structured right now, it often just functions as a propaganda machine: Declare certain people and organizations to be authority, and repeat their claims in a factual, seemingly objective tone, pretending like it's proven facts, even if the opposite is the case.There's actually a rule on Wikipedia saying "use common sense" but I guess nobody cares about it.
(DIR) Post #ArS96gX7jErFtzijUu by Gnomeshatecheese@spinster.xyz
2025-02-24T19:18:02.210563Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@taylan A friend told me of a well-known musician, whose Wikipedia page had a factual mistake. The musician signed in, corrected it, but the all-wise editors of Wikipedia changed it back, and then took away his right to go back and correct it again. And it was something on the level of a birthday or something, so not even something arguable, or that was a matter of opinion. Crowd sourcing information sounds great, as long as you don't think about it for longer than five minutes.
(DIR) Post #ArTgaqGfkePoVkmTCa by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-02-25T05:27:35.097932Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@taylan I don't even get media sources - many media sites lie.You may not want to accept research that cannot be replicated, but 9 good sources that anyone can check is much better than a media article.I've noticed a lot of proprietary rot in Wikipedia, but when you check the sources, the sources aren't rotted and someone else has put their proprietary opinion in.
(DIR) Post #ArTgarBOLlmlLfJlbs by gabi@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-02-25T12:15:48.223568Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @taylan >I've noticed a lot of proprietary rot in Wikipedia, but when you check the sources, the sources aren't rotted and someone else has put their proprietary opinion inIndeed. I have read several times in the discussions on Wikipedia about articles related to free software that the use of the term "GNU/Linux" to refer to the GNU operating system is, at least, a debatable topic. It is argued that the "neutral term Linux" should be used to refer to the operating system, as otherwise it could be interpreted as taking sides. I suppose and hope that this proprietary opinion comes from the same proprietary idiot.They sometimes just blatantly lie. For example, they use photographs of foods in articles that do not correspond to the same products (e.g., a photo of a corndog in an article about a panchuque). Although the panchuque can be considered a variation of a corndog, the caption of the photograph states "a panchuque".
(DIR) Post #ArTgarqVssg9PCYbho by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-02-25T13:07:56.786713Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gabi >I suppose and hope that this proprietary opinion comes from the same proprietary idiot.It's a group of freedom haters who understand very well the damage caused by referring to GNU as "Linux".
(DIR) Post #ArTgfLnGTvGNRdAwEq by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-02-25T13:08:48.113085Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gabi >I suppose and hope that this proprietary opinion comes from the same proprietary idiot.It's a group of freedom haters who understand very well the damage caused by referring to GNU as "Linux".If only they knew that wikipedia was meant to be a free encyclopedia, not a nonfree one.
(DIR) Post #ArU7JQSz7nYoKSSYq0 by Leyonhjelm@detroitriotcity.com
2025-02-25T18:07:21.368401Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@taylan Media is basically 90% bullshit and 10% noncontroversial truth. The 10% is purely by accident.
(DIR) Post #ArU8ZjQiUFVBjLjnqS by graf@poa.st
2025-02-25T18:21:32.023282Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@taylan I had a smei-viral argument with that Molly white woman (head wikipedia janny) about the sources for "groyper". You can see one of /ourguys/ argue her in the talk page about it. Lmfao. Fuck wikipedia
(DIR) Post #ArU8f8v78rruEdXJEe by pernia@cum.salon
2025-02-25T18:22:29.192785Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@taylan slashdot as a "reputable source", but not undeadly.org? Are these people retarded?
(DIR) Post #ArU9SENLeDYBLP9KDY by graf@poa.st
2025-02-25T18:31:21.260116Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@taylan even the ebooks bot is talking about it now https://beta.poa.st/notice/ArU9Ky0IauG9sG7EIa
(DIR) Post #ArUEUTTkxqSIXK2IPQ by taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org
2025-02-25T19:24:42.533329Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@pernia They also consider PinkNews to be reliable but not DailyMail. (Both are equally idiotic rags, but one of them is staunchly liberal, so...)
(DIR) Post #ArUQHzFkiTo4leIWIK by dagda@netzsphaere.xyz
2025-02-25T20:36:46.792311Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@taylan @pernia at least in germany the BILD (german paper for the vulgar center-right) is arguably very sloppy from journo ethos tbh. However I do increasingly see factcheckers and academia as a very blatant extension of elite top-down information and narrative control. I wonder if one was to re-evaluate the degree of factuality in something like a comparative format (BILD vs Süddeutsche Zeitung) with research groups aware and heavily combatting their own biases in methodology and social backgrounds how such a study would turn out
(DIR) Post #ArUQI0P0RYnqKddQMC by taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org
2025-02-25T21:19:38.348824Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@dagda @pernia Yes, some institutions very close to academia, like say Scientific American or the APA, are publishing outright anti-scientific or at least unscientific drivel now due to political activism, and it's extremely distressing, because it gives credence to wholesale science denialism like climate change denial.Exhibit 1:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/Context: It's not only obvious, but since proven, that having trained under the effects of male levels of testosterone for many years provides one with athletic advantages that remain even after an entire year, or longer, of cross-sex hormone treatment involving T suppression:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9331831/ , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/ , https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577(I had not previously noticed that the SciAm article above was written by Jack Turban. He's a known gobshite in the trans debate, using his academic credentials to push political ideology under the guise of science. People like him really need to be weeded out of the sciences, just like they need to weed out fossil fuel shills and other such bad actors.)Exhibit 2:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/https://www.apa.org/about/policy/transgender-nonbinary-inclusive-care.pdfContext: The Cass Review has revealed that there is no solid evidence for the efficacy of puberty blocking treatments when it comes to the mental health of trans-identifying children. Several other European countries have come to similar conclusions (too lazy to cite, feel free to scrutinize) and have either stopped the use of puberty blockers or started to limit their use to clinical trials. As for cross-sex hormones rather than puberty blockers: The significant differences in contemporary demographics of trans-identified youth (e.g. the 40-fold increase of trans-identifying girls and young women in a time-span of 10 years in the UK) raises the question of whether we can still rely on the results of older studies when it comes to the usefulness of cross-sex hormone treatments for trans-identifying youth.I'm using the trans topic as my example because I happen to know that it's something that makes liberal academics lose their scientific integrity. I don't know if there's other such topics, but there probably are.