Post by blissyu2 on Jul 6, 2008 10:00:24 GMT -5
Wikipedia's problems depend largely on what kind of article they are writing.
Wikipedia's article on Naruto (at least prior to it being merged/hacked to pieces) was fantastic. Their articles on The Simpsons, Southpark, Spongebob Squarepants and Red Dwarf are unbelievably good. There is no better place on the internet to find out anything you want about them.
Wikipedia is incredible with fan fics too. Real life celebrities, from musicians to actors to anything that has fans. Of course, once controversies jump in, they start to suck a bit, but so long as they avoid controversy (and can avoid it), they are fine.
The problem really starts when it comes to controversial topics, topics where the "Neutral Point of View" can't work. Topics where there are multiple - 3, 4, 5, or more - points of view. Topics like Osama bin Laden or George W Bush or any current political leader or political issue.
Wikipedia also seriously sucks when dealing with cover ups. Name any murder mystery that has never been properly resolved and Wikipedia has a hopelessly inaccurate and uninformative article on it. In Australia, their articles on Peter Falconio, Backpacker murders, Lindy Chamberlain and of course the big one, the Port Arthur massacre, are disgraceful. The only reason that the Peter Falconio article looks as good as it does is because I wrote most of it.
The Port Arthur massacre, as is known to people who were in the area at the time that it happened, did not happen remotely like what it was said had happened on TV. While official government-sponsored media were claiming that it was all terribly obvious, independent media were telling the real story. They were telling stories of accomplices, of people still being alive when they were meant to be dead, of the wrong cars being found, and of course they were repeating my story, over and over again, displaying evidence that the police knew that it was going to happen a long time beforehand.
There was a coverup, but there wasn't a conspiracy. Quite simply police were told that it was going to happen but laughed it off. Unbelievable, they thought, couldn't happen. So when it did happen, they had egg on their faces. So they had to lie to pretend that they didn't know about it. They had to pretend that there was no planning, that nobody knew about it. That is why there was such a great cover up.
What is worse is that the coverup wasn't even displayed. Wikipedia makes NO MENTION WHATSOEVER as to the actual story that was being reported in the media. Instead, they focus on the fake story, the story about guns being taken off people - something that was never spoken of seriously in the media.
This situation exists throughout Wikipedia - from Lockerbie Bombing articles suddenly changing to be called "Pan Am Flight 103" and looking like papers from a CIA dossier on how to spread disinformation through to political reports on countries and political figures. Wikipedia gets it wrong all over the place.
Not only does Wikipedia get it wrong, but they get it wrong in a very distinct, calculated way.
Wikipedia isn't getting the Port Arthur massacre wrong in the way that most people get it wrong. Wikipedia is getting it wrong in a way that hides the truth.
More than half of the people who have ever tried to edit the Port Arthur massacre article have tried to include some mention of the truth of what happened. ALL of these people were labelled as vandals. Their comments are labelled as ignorant and stupid. Many of them - over 40 - were banned because of trying to introduce truth.
Why are people banned for trying to introduce truth? Why, because Wikipedia - who ignores such things as Google having 90% of their entries disagreeing with it on this issue - says that what they have in there is the real truth.
And the danger is that not only are they lying, spreading a thoroughly false version of events in this issue (and undoubtedly in many other similar issues) but those false versions of events are later accepted as truth by news bodies, and then Wikipedia is able to subsequently use those news reports to back up the lies that they had in their article for so many years.
Wikipedia has the potential to change truth. They do it regularly. They define "truthiness".
According to Wikipedia, something isn't true unless it has a reliable source. But if that reliable source is one which got its information from Wikipedia, as is the case with the Port Arthur massacre article, that is good enough.
Not only that, but Wikipedia are allowed to have sources that say the exact opposite of what they write in the article - also used in earlier versions of the Port Arthur massacre article.
People can die because of this kind of thing. People go to war on false pretences, people get arrested, go to jail, and get executed.
Wikipedia has a responsibility to these people.
Wikipedia needs to either fix up so that these important articles are accurate - focussing on accuracy rather than worrying about "neutrality" - or else focus on what they are good at. Stop wiping the Naruto/Spongebob/etc pages and instead make them the focus.
Wikipedia sure as hell can't be trusted to make serious articles.
Wikipedia's article on Naruto (at least prior to it being merged/hacked to pieces) was fantastic. Their articles on The Simpsons, Southpark, Spongebob Squarepants and Red Dwarf are unbelievably good. There is no better place on the internet to find out anything you want about them.
Wikipedia is incredible with fan fics too. Real life celebrities, from musicians to actors to anything that has fans. Of course, once controversies jump in, they start to suck a bit, but so long as they avoid controversy (and can avoid it), they are fine.
The problem really starts when it comes to controversial topics, topics where the "Neutral Point of View" can't work. Topics where there are multiple - 3, 4, 5, or more - points of view. Topics like Osama bin Laden or George W Bush or any current political leader or political issue.
Wikipedia also seriously sucks when dealing with cover ups. Name any murder mystery that has never been properly resolved and Wikipedia has a hopelessly inaccurate and uninformative article on it. In Australia, their articles on Peter Falconio, Backpacker murders, Lindy Chamberlain and of course the big one, the Port Arthur massacre, are disgraceful. The only reason that the Peter Falconio article looks as good as it does is because I wrote most of it.
The Port Arthur massacre, as is known to people who were in the area at the time that it happened, did not happen remotely like what it was said had happened on TV. While official government-sponsored media were claiming that it was all terribly obvious, independent media were telling the real story. They were telling stories of accomplices, of people still being alive when they were meant to be dead, of the wrong cars being found, and of course they were repeating my story, over and over again, displaying evidence that the police knew that it was going to happen a long time beforehand.
There was a coverup, but there wasn't a conspiracy. Quite simply police were told that it was going to happen but laughed it off. Unbelievable, they thought, couldn't happen. So when it did happen, they had egg on their faces. So they had to lie to pretend that they didn't know about it. They had to pretend that there was no planning, that nobody knew about it. That is why there was such a great cover up.
What is worse is that the coverup wasn't even displayed. Wikipedia makes NO MENTION WHATSOEVER as to the actual story that was being reported in the media. Instead, they focus on the fake story, the story about guns being taken off people - something that was never spoken of seriously in the media.
This situation exists throughout Wikipedia - from Lockerbie Bombing articles suddenly changing to be called "Pan Am Flight 103" and looking like papers from a CIA dossier on how to spread disinformation through to political reports on countries and political figures. Wikipedia gets it wrong all over the place.
Not only does Wikipedia get it wrong, but they get it wrong in a very distinct, calculated way.
Wikipedia isn't getting the Port Arthur massacre wrong in the way that most people get it wrong. Wikipedia is getting it wrong in a way that hides the truth.
More than half of the people who have ever tried to edit the Port Arthur massacre article have tried to include some mention of the truth of what happened. ALL of these people were labelled as vandals. Their comments are labelled as ignorant and stupid. Many of them - over 40 - were banned because of trying to introduce truth.
Why are people banned for trying to introduce truth? Why, because Wikipedia - who ignores such things as Google having 90% of their entries disagreeing with it on this issue - says that what they have in there is the real truth.
And the danger is that not only are they lying, spreading a thoroughly false version of events in this issue (and undoubtedly in many other similar issues) but those false versions of events are later accepted as truth by news bodies, and then Wikipedia is able to subsequently use those news reports to back up the lies that they had in their article for so many years.
Wikipedia has the potential to change truth. They do it regularly. They define "truthiness".
According to Wikipedia, something isn't true unless it has a reliable source. But if that reliable source is one which got its information from Wikipedia, as is the case with the Port Arthur massacre article, that is good enough.
Not only that, but Wikipedia are allowed to have sources that say the exact opposite of what they write in the article - also used in earlier versions of the Port Arthur massacre article.
People can die because of this kind of thing. People go to war on false pretences, people get arrested, go to jail, and get executed.
Wikipedia has a responsibility to these people.
Wikipedia needs to either fix up so that these important articles are accurate - focussing on accuracy rather than worrying about "neutrality" - or else focus on what they are good at. Stop wiping the Naruto/Spongebob/etc pages and instead make them the focus.
Wikipedia sure as hell can't be trusted to make serious articles.
