Item — HN Reader

> Wikipedia is like academia it's a closed system where a small group get to decide what opinions are correct, what facts get a mention and what are worth looking at with a feedback loop to itself that is used to control facts by deciding what sources are valid

Came here to say this. 98% of the content is perfectly fine. Searching for "lemurs" in any search engine returns a perfectly trustworthy (calling all lemur experts!) wikipedia page. But, look for anything divisive, political, cultural, etc., and I've increasingly noticed the articles take clear positions.

1 comments

I'm actually very curios about this. Can you link to an example of a clear position? I ask because I'm thinking it may be that, as political discourse becomes more polarized, it is conceivable that a mostly neutral article is perceived as biased in the wrong direction by both camps.

So if you can find a good example of what you have in mind, it would be really helpful to examine it and see what might be going on.

Specific examples just incite a never-ending low-fidelity Internet debate that I'd really prefer not to get into, but despite my hesitation, I'll risk suggesting that you search for blog posts by the co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger.

Ok, thanks