▲ 1073 ▼ They use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust. (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by Daft_ish@lemmy.world to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world 330 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 40 points 2 years ago (4 children) And interestingly it’s trustable because it’s got no central authority core that can be corrupted permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Wogi@lemmy.world 61 points 2 years ago (3 children) Except there are defacto central authorities governing certain pages. Not only that there's a turf war going on for control of them. Certain ahem religious organizations monitor a variety of pages and snipe any changes they disagree with. Businesses are doing it too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Forester@yiffit.net 7 points 2 years ago And certain politicians permalink fedilink source parent [–] Agent641@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which religious orgs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] not_a_bot_i_swear@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago Probably all of them... Just a guess though. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I haven’t participated in wikipedia enough to see how these turf wars play out. I’ve heard that, unsurprisingly, there are groups that control pages, some opposed and some unopposed. It’s a really interesting thing to me. I’m afraid of politics, generally speaking. But I bet it would be interesting to be a part of all that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think the word you're looking for is "trustworthy" but yes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago I consider it a separate concept. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Metz@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) yeah, apart from the admins that have absolute authority over everything and can do whatever the hell they want and make up arbitrary rules that disqualify your perfectly valid sources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) that doesn't happen permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) There definitely are editors who game the rules. And they are enough of a problem that sometimes rules need to be modified specifically to handle them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seem to be conflating editors with admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago Admins are a subgroup of editors. As more senior members, they should behave more responsibly. But some don't. permalink fedilink source parent [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago That's is definitely not true... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 61 points 2 years ago (3 children) Except there are defacto central authorities governing certain pages. Not only that there's a turf war going on for control of them. Certain ahem religious organizations monitor a variety of pages and snipe any changes they disagree with. Businesses are doing it too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Forester@yiffit.net 7 points 2 years ago And certain politicians permalink fedilink source parent [–] Agent641@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which religious orgs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] not_a_bot_i_swear@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago Probably all of them... Just a guess though. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I haven’t participated in wikipedia enough to see how these turf wars play out. I’ve heard that, unsurprisingly, there are groups that control pages, some opposed and some unopposed. It’s a really interesting thing to me. I’m afraid of politics, generally speaking. But I bet it would be interesting to be a part of all that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Forester@yiffit.net 7 points 2 years ago And certain politicians permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which religious orgs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] not_a_bot_i_swear@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago Probably all of them... Just a guess though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] not_a_bot_i_swear@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago Probably all of them... Just a guess though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I haven’t participated in wikipedia enough to see how these turf wars play out. I’ve heard that, unsurprisingly, there are groups that control pages, some opposed and some unopposed. It’s a really interesting thing to me. I’m afraid of politics, generally speaking. But I bet it would be interesting to be a part of all that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think the word you're looking for is "trustworthy" but yes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago I consider it a separate concept. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago I consider it a separate concept. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Metz@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) yeah, apart from the admins that have absolute authority over everything and can do whatever the hell they want and make up arbitrary rules that disqualify your perfectly valid sources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) that doesn't happen permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) There definitely are editors who game the rules. And they are enough of a problem that sometimes rules need to be modified specifically to handle them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seem to be conflating editors with admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago Admins are a subgroup of editors. As more senior members, they should behave more responsibly. But some don't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) that doesn't happen permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) There definitely are editors who game the rules. And they are enough of a problem that sometimes rules need to be modified specifically to handle them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seem to be conflating editors with admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago Admins are a subgroup of editors. As more senior members, they should behave more responsibly. But some don't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) There definitely are editors who game the rules. And they are enough of a problem that sometimes rules need to be modified specifically to handle them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seem to be conflating editors with admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago Admins are a subgroup of editors. As more senior members, they should behave more responsibly. But some don't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seem to be conflating editors with admins. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago Admins are a subgroup of editors. As more senior members, they should behave more responsibly. But some don't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago Admins are a subgroup of editors. As more senior members, they should behave more responsibly. But some don't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago That's is definitely not true... permalink fedilink source parent