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.
Redundancy detected. If a Circle Jerk were not self referencing, then you wouldn't call it a Circle Jerk. It would be a Line Jerk. One end would be un-serviced while the other end would be capable of servicing but is under utilized.
If Conservapedia has a page about Circle Jerks, then it needs to be updated to reflect this.
At least YouTube has the good sense to not use Conservapedia to verify YouTube videos.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
"Wiki's editorial staff" are just its general users. As a casual editor for well over a decade now (as in, I fix up little things I find while reading it, and watch pages on topics I'm interested in for updates and mostly just revert obvious vandalism that hits those pages), I've witnessed my fair share of edit wars, and for the most part 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.
Also, no encyclopedia is a reputable source in any academic institution. But unlike most encyclopedias, Wikipedia is supposed to point you to the reputable sources that it got its information from, instead of just asking you to trust it.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
This is anecdotal, but if my own experience watching stuff on it is any indication, I would guess that the percentage of patently false videos on youtube is not less than 5%, and may be MUCH higher.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"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
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.
> 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.
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.
Have you had much luck with that? I've tried to fix a few grammar errors as well as obvious factual errors (e.g. cardinal direction between two cities). They've been reverted by overzealous editors who "own" the article.
Actually, it's perfectly possible to get a permanent link to a Wikipedia page so that what you cite won't change. The reason it can't be used as a source is that it's an encyclopedia, not a primary or secondary source. Academics use it to get some background information and to find its sources.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes