I've been editing Wikipedia literally for decades and I'm astonished at the vitriol in these comments. Would any HNers care to share any examples of actual articles that showcase this "extreme ideological slant"?
Yes, editing Wikipedia is harder than it needs to be and you better have your Kevlar underwear on before venturing into hot potato topics, but there's a lot more to Wikipedia than that and contributions to more obscure/factual articles are generally more than welcome.
Two (well, really one) concrete example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_F._Cantlonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeste_Kidd The allegations these women made against Jaeger were investigated four separate times, including investigations carried out by 3rd party investigators, and each time were determined to be unfounded. Not only that, the investigations revealed that Kidd and Cantlon had told explicit lies to investigators (e.g. claiming he sexually assaulted other women, but those women explained to investigators that no such assaults occurred, and they never gave any indication to Kidd or Cantlon that that were ever assaulted by Jaeger).
Despite this, the wikipedia articles remained entirely credulous of these accusations until only a few months ago. A couple editors suppressed any inclusion of exonerating information.
It's kind of interesting that the page for Cantlon mentions that she is Time person of the year for being one of the Silence Breakers, but as far as I can tell, the actual article has 0 information about the circumstances that lead to her being given that award until almost the bottom of the article, under the heading "Academic service".
Both have had their fair share of controversies. However, you would never know it from reading the first second of Lorenz's article. In fact, much of the article focuses on the harassment she has received. Rufo's article doesn't have a section dedicated to the harassment he has received. (I don't know for a fact that he has, but I just expect him to have been the victim of some harassment based on his public position.) Lorentz's article does touch on some of her controversies, but the tone is totally different.
N.B. I don't know much about either person, I'm just noting that their articles have different tones which I suspect is for ideological reasons.
I'm not sure what needs to be in the Wikipedia article. But I think that's not necessary to say that, when all I'm accusing Wikipedia of is a double standard.
If I said "the justice system gives men harsher sentences than women for the same crime", I wouldn't necessarily have to know whether men should be given more lenient sentences or women should be given harsher sentences, if I only wanted to say that the current situation is unfair and something should change.
I think it's fine to put all of Rufo's controversial stuff at the beginning of his article, but they didn't do it for Lorenz, and I didn't see a plausible reason other than "they like Lorenz and don't like Rufo".
I think it is necessary to say that if you want to make a meaningful critique since otherwise you can simply point out differences in any two articles and call that bias.
> I've been editing Wikipedia literally for decades and I'm astonished at the vitriol in these comments. Would any HNers care to share any examples of actual articles that showcase this "extreme ideological slant"?
I agree that this is a little bit overblown. I have come across this article
[0] about a particular editor, but I'm not sure if this is an exceptional example or not
Edit: it's been discussed before [1], I'm not sure why it's flagged
> Yes, editing Wikipedia is harder than it needs to be and you better have your Kevlar underwear on before venturing into hot potato topics, but
... but? Really? After that first part of your sentence, you think there’s a “but”?
> contributions to more obscure/factual articles are generally more than welcome.
They are absolutely not. I stopped editing in the 2010s when it became clear that more and more of my contributions are just going to get reverted or deleted. Everyone I know personally feels the same way: contributing to Wikipedia is pointless because it all just gets deleted anyway. I don’t know anybody who thinks Wikipedia is a welcoming place, and the supposed goal to collect “the sum of all human knowledge” is a farce.
From your comment, it’s clear that you’re not experiencing this. Clearly you have adapted well to the rules, perhaps to the point where they have become second nature to you. That means it will become harder and harder for you to take a step back and think really deeply about the ways in which they hinder the project to collect “the sum of all human knowledge”.
Look at the article on Zionism. I'm Israeli so take my view of it with a grain of salt, but it reads as incredibly biased to me.
And even if you think I'm wrong or can't be trusted - I suggest comparing the version of it now to the version of that same article a year ago. It is far less biased, as are many articles about Israel, reflecting a concerted effort to change Wikipedia to a different narrative, on this topic at least.
Yes, editing Wikipedia is harder than it needs to be and you better have your Kevlar underwear on before venturing into hot potato topics, but there's a lot more to Wikipedia than that and contributions to more obscure/factual articles are generally more than welcome.