157
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
157 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15893 readers
373 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
teachers always had the angle that wikipedia is bad because the mere rabble editing it don't have staid institutional reputation behind them. it was always obvious to everyone else, though, that wikipedia does a fine job of interpreting the sources. wikipedia is consistently useful as an aggregator of mainstream sources
the only way to attack it I think is with vandalism. add incorrect information like slightly wrong dates, wrong distances to astronomical objects, and wrong molecular weights of chemicals; mix up physics theorems with subtly-incorrect contrapositives; replace working code with pseudocode that doesn't quite handle the edge cases. make people as frustrated with wikipedia as they are with quora! then wikipedia will become irrelevant.
it won't change all of the liberalism that wikipedia was collecting in the first place, but
death to wikipedia
Read an article on the PRC and this idea falls apart
I don't think vandalism will do it and any concerted attempt to do so would inevitably be discovered and only reinforce people's support for it.
the hardcore editor dorks are a lost cause anyway so I'm not worried about them getting upset by putinbots trying to destroy democracy or whatever they think. to the mostly indifferent reading masses, it's just quality steadily going down
you might be right though that vandalism alone wouldn't be enough. maybe if the quality of wikipedia declines enough then ai can start to supplant it as the go-to source for looking something up. it's the same lib nonsense but at least people know to be skeptical of what they see in their google results. as it is people are bamboozled by mystifying "consensus" and "reputation" etc
Sprinkles extra spaces everywhere.