You must log in or # to comment.
That’s literally what the library of Alexandria was all about.
They told all of the nerds that the best nerd paper would get into their nerd building, and nerds traveled there from around the world and dedicated their lives to correcting and one-upping the other nerds.
I love the fallibility of humans and our consistency, it makes me much more comfortable to live in a world that seems comprehensible, because I know underneath all of it are like three dumb existential complacencies that any human part of the species can’t deny.
Just ignore the 150M a year they spend managing finances, contributors, tech, moderation, etc. Takes a lot to maintain an accurate library.
i dont think anyone is ignoring that. the meme is talking about how it was built, not how it’s currently maintained. it definitely didn’t start off spending that much. all that spending is a consequence of it’s popularity, not the reason for it.
Some would say that most of the spending is based on greed. Individual salaries doubled to tripled in the last decade, with their head earning three quarters of a million now.
It was a tenth 15 years ago.
They started out right, like they all do. Then personal money catches up.
You thinking a $750,000 salary for the CEO of one of the top ten visited websites in the world and arguably one of the most important knowledge resources we’ve probably ever created is ‘greed’ is pretty hilarious.
Thinking one guy deserves that much salary for the work of millions of volunteers over decades is what’s hilarious. Do you think those giant pleas that they post when they need money would be as convincing if they listed his salary?
What does that have to do with Wikipedia specifically?This isn’t a problem of wikipedia it’s a problem of capitalism
Aside from nagging a bit more often for donations, has the site gotten worse in any way as a result?
I wanted to fact check you on this, and you speak true.
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries
Makes me question my willingness to donate money to them.
I think you should consider the opportunity cost of what they would be making elsewhere. Salaries need to be competitive, otherwise you are at the mercy of those who are willing to work for less and hope that the reason is benevolent.
That would make more sense if Wikipedia was a profit generating enterprise that needed to satisfy shareholders. It’s run like a charity through donations, though.
Fifteen other people sit on the board of trustees that oversees wikimedia. The only person on that board who gets paid is Jimmy.
All human advancement was created by nerds. Spears were invented by weaklings too slow to kill with their bare hands. Fire was tamed by the people who were scared of the dark
I think fire was tamed because the food poisoning killed those without it. We are supposed to just sleep at night.
Assuming primitive people would make the connection between gross food and people dying.
https://ebookslib.org/sf/12898-eurema-s-dam.html
Fun little story that makes my point.
deleted by creator
It’s crazy. The current CEO openly participates in US state department briefings.
Maryana Iskander? What? Can you elaborate?
Okay, this is going to need elaboration.
Look up the guerilla skeptics
Could you specify? I’ve heard similar comments aimed against people not accepting Russian propaganda. But I imagine with the common user base, you would get some very anglocentric implicit bias just because that’s what they know.
deleted by creator
Yes, I do, every time there’s seventeen exceptions on a statement that used to be simple. ‘This was their last album with this drummer, until he came back, except for this other time, before he left again.’ Just rewrite the damn sentence.
And still, even with a do-over, somehow failed to call it “M’akshually”. 🤷🏼♂️
What I find amazing is that some people are so dedicated to Wikipedia that they literally and consider vandals for how much information they put in.
That’s what it should’ve been. In reality anything even remotely political on it is heavily biased towards imperial core and NATO countries, and against their geopolitical rivals.
This happens partly because most of these “nerds” are also westerners and rate their own outlets as more reliable, thus enforcing western propaganda.
You bring up an interesting point. There are opposing opinions on everything if you go deep enough into the topic, even in STEM fields too.
It’d be interesting to see a Wikipedia that provides pages on the same topic that present each opinion. So the base/overview page on the topic states the summaries of each opinion with a link for further reading. Each opinion page states there are many opinions on the topic and it just presents one. Each page then suggests for further reading, view the base/overview page where the user can read about other opinions on the topic.
Sur-fucking-prise.
lemmy.world user
Sur-fucking-prise lol
Wikipedia was founded by a self-admitted ancap who supported “israel’s” bombing of Gaza in 2018, and its most prolific editor (edited an entire 1/3 of wikipedia articles) is a fascist. The vast majority of its editors are indeed westerners with an extreme pro-imperial core bias, particularly the US and UK.
Hell, the current CEO literally attended a US state department briefing in 2017 with a former CIA/NSA director and is currently on the advisory board for the CIA offshoot OTF.
Least braindead .world user
Wawa NATO
Russian imperialism is the best recruiter NATO ever had.
Well uh, username checks out ig
Wikipedia is not a library neither is it a reliable source of accurate information.
It’s definitely not 100% foolproof to misinformation, but I’ve always found wikipedia to be reliable. Why do you feel it isnt?
Wikipedia’s reliability in it’s own words - check out the holocaust misinformation from last year!
US congressional staff editing controversies as documented by and presented in wikipedia
A ten year long hoax running until two years ago
Wikipedia’s own list of its controversies - pay special attention here to the 2023 exposure of an administrator pretending to be a spanish folk singer as a sockpuppet of another administrator who was banned in 2015 for making “promotional edits”.
I want to be clear: i do not feel that wikipedia isn’t reliable. I can clearly observe that wikipedia is unreliable.
Info on Wikipedia shouldn’t be taken at face value, check the sources given! A lot of the examples you gave likely didn’t have any citation. The blame for misinformation partly lies with the people accepting information with no sources given. Also, any example of known misinformation just means that it has been caught and corrected. Everyone should know wikipedia is not right 100% of the time but it is always getting better. There millions of articles and I don’t think the examples you listed should lead anyone to believe it is overall unreliable. It is good however to not blindly put your trust in whatever you read from it, and if you do come across something that isn’t correct, you have the opportunity to fix it.
That’s wild.
If you knew a person who shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe them? Would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?
Wikipedia isn’t a person though. It’s a website of articles that summarizes topics and ideally lists sources that contain the info within it. I agree a person that sounds like that is untrustworthy, but that doesn’t mean anything on the topic of wikipedia.
Woah.
So, like, if you knew of a website which shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe it? would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?
It depends on the website. A Twitter post with no source? Untrustworthy. Wikipedia page with plenty of sources to back up the article? I would default to saying trustworthy, but of course I would still have to check the sources myself. Wikipedia is a tool. It connects you to outside sources of info. It has the reputation of being reliable enough to get trustworthy info in its summaries. As I’ve already stated before, mistakes have been made though.
Removed by mod
