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."
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.
99% of their stuff is factual. That's far better than what you get on YouTube.
But that's okay, because YouTube (a.k.a Google) is also biased. Is there any doubt that "a Wikipedia link beneath videos on highly contested topics" really means anything that doesn't adhere to their agenda will be flagged with a reference disputing it.
And 99% of their stuff is uncontroversial. Nobody's arguing over whether mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell.
The controversial shit (eg, politics)? Just as shit as YouTube.
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.
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?
None of the three statements was a logical fallacy.
Perhaps you should spend some time looking at the Wikipedia page on logical fallacies so you might have a better chance of recognizing the difference between them and a stating an opinion or fact.
Wiki's editorial staff are well known to be biased, group-think, and agenda-driven - some of the wars are legendary.
Proof by Assertion.
Wiki is not accepted as a scholarly or reputable source in any reputable academic institution.
Association Fallacy/Fallacy of the Inverse.
As a basic source of information for non-scholastic arguments, I suppose its better than nothing.
Nirvana Fallacy.
Even I know that Venezuela and the USSR are very illiberal.