Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Had No Idea YouTube Was Going To Use It To Fact-Check Conspiracy Theories (gizmodo.com)
Yesterday, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki announced that the company would drop a Wikipedia link beneath videos on highly contested topics. We have now learned that Wikipedia did not know about this move prior to the announcement. Gizmodo reports: In a Twitter thread asking the public to support Wikipedia as much as it relies on it, Wikimedia executive director Katherine Maher first suggested that the organization was unaware of YouTube's plans. When asked whether this new module would only apply to English Wikipedia pages, Maher responded, "I couldn't say; this was something they did independent of us." In a statement to Gizmodo, the Wikimedia Foundation confirmed that the organization first learned of the new YouTube feature on Tuesday. "We are always happy to see people, companies, and organizations recognize Wikipedia's value as a repository of free knowledge," a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson said in a statement. "In this case, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are part of a formal partnership with YouTube. We were not given advance notice of this announcement."
Idiots at YouTube using the Idiots at Wikipedia to Fact check things, who are undoubtedly using references to YouTube.
It's a Self Referencing Circle Jerk.
Excitement!
Wiki's editorial staff are well known to be biased, group-think, and agenda-driven - some of the wars are legendary.
Wiki is not accepted as a scholarly or reputable source in any reputable academic institution.
As a basic source of information for non-scholastic arguments, I suppose its better than nothing.
This means the WIKIPEDIA articles will start to huge a huge influx of people who aren't normally wiki editors. And you know what Wikipedia is? Free for ANYONE to edit.
So what does that do? It means Wikipedia articles that get linked will 1) Have huge bandwidth costs thanks to YouTube, and 2) get edited by people who love conspiracies and end up way shittier.
Thanks, YouTube!
Ever think that Rage Against the Machine's Evil Empire album came out like... 15 yeas too early? If they had any idea how big Facebook and Google would become, they would have come up with another 5 albums worth of content.
There is a value in a wiki that lists citations. In many ways a link to Wikipedia is more valuable than having a link to a single verified source.
Now could the sources on your average wikipedia page be curated better? Absolutely. But complaining about it and encouraging us to ignore the value that Wikipedia provides is no solution.
Perhaps Google can throw some money to them so we can get rid of the donation drives? Only seems fair...
..does that mean they're going away for as long as Youtube is using Wikipedia?
Cuz seriously, if I knew that donating to Wikipedia would've garnered so much email spam, I'd never have donated in the first place.
I don't remember Wikipedia notifying anyone about their citation links. Do this mean there is some formal agreement between wikipedia and the links they cite?
Heavy liberal bias.
But only because reality has a liberal bias.
Heavy liberal bias. Please consider starting here, but finding more reputable sources for your information.
Yeah! Like the comments section of youtube. You can learn a great deal about human nature. If you really want to.
Some admins look like a freak show exhibit. Do you seriously expect Wikipedia to be trusted when they employ young punks to "revert" knowledge. Some admins spend over 12 hours a day playing with "Huggle" and "Twinkle" to revert good faith edits. YouTube should link to peer reviewed papers instead. Use the money it saved from demonetization to pay for the journal fees.
Whoa whoa! You keep us out of your crazy censorship crusade!
YouTube is part of Google, now called Alphabet. This is another example of bad management by Alphabet, in my opinion.
Hopefully YouTube (Alphabet/Google/whatever they're called this month) will be making big donations to the Wikimedia folks to cover all the extra traffic this will generate.
That is an old meme that is no longer true. We've gorged ourselves on self aggrandizing and blatantly false propaganda for the last 4 years and it has resulted in the stagnation of our ability to think for ourselves.
Consider this:
Russia meddled in our election to elect someone that was politically opposite of them. Yet somehow we don't even stop to consider what else they've meddled in. The truth of the matter is that they've been causing radicalization in this country for some time. We're at the point where the left will attack anyone who is not left leaning. Centrists? Nazis. Right leaning people? nazis. Disagree with pop psychology which was probably russia funded to begin with? Nazis.
Ummm, I think you mean more like Rage Against the Machine's self titled debut album, not Evil Empire.
e.g. "Bullet in your head" seems apropos.
Your point is still valid, --this was before mainstream Internet was a thing.
I should have said:
YouTube is part of Google, now called Alphabet. This is another example of bad management by Alphabet, in my opinion.
YouTube should not have announced a partnership that does not exist.
Heavy liberal bias.
But only because reality has a liberal bias.
What the hell is that based on? The economic success of Venezuela? The shining example of the Soviet Union?
"Wiki's editorial staff" are just its general users.
That is VERY wrong. I have through the years tried to correct some minor mistakes and omissions. Usually things are find but now and again you run into some VERY Assholios who will not accept a submission they disagree with, not matter how well sourced.
I get the feeling that people who have a big problem with Wikipedia's processes are disruptive editors unhappy that they're not successfully able to push their agenda through it.
Wrong, it's more like there are some editors with a fixed agenda presented by a wikipedia page they will not allow anyone to mess with.
Wikipedia is supposed to point you to the reputable sources that it got its information from
Which it does - but the problem comes in what they consider to be acceptable sources, where they will selectively deny facts that you can reliably source, while letting casual assertions without any source slide because it agrees with their own agenda.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In the past we had to worry about ads pushing malware.
Now political activist US brands want to push their side of US party politics onto your browser?
Time for a script that blocks US party political big brand alterations of your search results.
The ads go blocked.
The party political propaganda as results can be blocked too.
Just say no to big brand activists pushing their partisan political results all over your browser.
It is time to take back our browsers- and make the Internet great again.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
One site showing links to another site, without even asking? Good grief. Is this what the internet has come to?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Extremes are hardly the rule. It is hard to argue that the creation of social security and creating a minimum wage along with all the other factors that created a middle class didn't help the entire country become far more prosperous. Now those in power are trying to turn us back into our pre-industrial government like it won't screw everyone except for the 1%.
Google isn't well known for acquiring consent before utilizing the resources of others. They are basically the corporate equivalent of rapists, have been for years. They found a way to monetize Wikipedia! Naturally Wikipedia won't see a dime of that profit.
Let me guess: you also believe Putin organised the murder of Julius Caesar?
And it's Russia's fault that you got a paper cut last Tuesday.
> Wiki is not accepted as a scholarly or reputable source in any reputable academic institution.
You don't cite an encyclopedia for the same reason you don't cite "the library".
Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are secondary sources. That means they collect and summarize primary sources, such as peer-reviewed studies. (Just as libraries collect and catalog sources).
Whatever is in an encyclopedia came from somewhere else, so you cite the source. It would be dumb to cite "Encyclopedia Britannica says that a study by Harvard says that ...". Just cite the study directly rather than indirectly.
This does not mean that encyclopedias are unreliable or somehow "bad", they are just an unnecessary extra step when citing where information comes from. You wouldn't cite "my roommate, John Carter, showed me a study which he got from the Texas A&M library which states ..." You cite the source of the information, not the steps it took to get to you. Wikipedia is a conduit of information, like a library, not an original source.
Griping about slashdot posts... This one is at a special level of narrative pushing. Somebody is building a disturbing narrative here, otherwise this headline is about as meaningful as "John Johnson Tied His Left Shoelace This Morning Before His Right Without Notifying His Wife".
Seriously, WTF?
Even I know that Venezuela and the USSR are very illiberal.
Say that again
I had a nice conversation with a vegan about how healthy veganism is and how it's a natural diet for humans... only if you take the supplements... yeah, those made in labs by chemists/biologists/doctors.
Hello, are you looking to earn extra cash online? i recommend Clixsense. Free to sign up by clicking below link.
http://www.clixsense.com/?8172285
Too bad the people that call themselves liberals are not actually liberals, hence able to take advantage of the liberal bias of reality.
People like to ignore the fact that Russia played both side in the presidential race. They wanted to create chaos and they did a good job. There is still more evidence of hillary rigging the election then there is of Donald Trump. Let's not forgot the also sold uranium mines to Russia.
How could a huge org like Google not have someone inside their org think "hey, maybe we should , minimally *tell* Wikipedia we're doing this." Or, "hey, maybe we could *ask* them. "
The more ya hear, the less you like.
So youtube uses wikipedia to fact check.... anyone can edit pages on wikipedia
Youtube plans to do what they always do. Shut conservative voices up and promote crazy liberal videos. Facts are the enemy of Democrats everywhere.
The metric system is definitely a russian plot.
And, who cares? Does Youtube need permission? The is a huge "who fucking cares?" moment.
Oh give it a rest. Even Fox news calls the uranium one "scandal" fake news. Along with your very own ag of the justice department. How dumb do you have to be to believe this shit?
Wikipedia is a fine tool for verifying information. Assuming 1) the Wiki article is correctly sourced and 2) you actually go check and verify THOSE SOURCES. Just using it by itself.
?
I will only support Wikipedia when it admits its biases, takes action against biases, and puts in preventative measures.
Anyone who relies upon Wikipedia's "volunteer' cadre of "editors" for serious analysis is in for a world of credibility trouble.
Here is an example of their laughable editorial in action.
A bio posting by the Son of a topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Wiser&diff=795197571&oldid=783695980
Finally, some editor got around to correcting it. But "his own son" as a "reliable source" remains.
What to watch? EVERIPEDIA.COM
As is Bernie Sanders and every other American claiming to be a "Liberal" while in reality seeing no problems with using the government's power to compel fellow citizens into doing, what they wouldn't have done voluntarily.
The term has been perverted so much, the actual adherents of Liberty have to call themselves "Libertarians".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Every time YouTube links to Wikipedia. They should a) include a donation link as well b) share a portion of the ad revenues to support Wikipedia.
Then it becomes a win-win scenario.
You should know and rejoice, that the account of Codename Lisa has been retired as of very recently. That happened, because it was initially blocked for 48 hours for failure to reach consensus, and for edit warring >:D
I now feel like all the employees of hp right after news, that Carly Fiorina was fired.
To those not in the know: Codename Lisa "owned" all articles related to Microsoft and Windows. I hope he or she will never return to edit Wikipedia again.