Error
Unrecognized LW server error:
Field "fmCrosspost" of type "CrosspostOutput" must have a selection of subfields. Did you mean "fmCrosspost { ... }"?Unrecognized LW server error:
Field "fmCrosspost" of type "CrosspostOutput" must have a selection of subfields. Did you mean "fmCrosspost { ... }"?
Strongly agree! Iâm currently writing an EA Forum post making the case for Wikipedia editing.
Given the discussion here and over at LessWrong where I crossposted this, I think when it comes to writing a larger post to make a more effective argument itâs important to explain how Wikipedia works. It seems to me like many people think that changing Wikipedia articles is just about making an edit and hoping it doesnât get reverted.
This works for smaller issues but when it comes to big issues it needs more then one person to create change. Iâm currently in a deep discussion on a contentious issue where I wrote a lot. If 3-4 people would join in and back me up, I likely could make the change and it wouldnât take much effort for everyone of those people.
When it comes to voting on an election you donât need to explain to people that even so they didnât get what they wanted this doesnât mean that there wasnât a democratic election. People have a mental model for how elections work but they donât have one for how decisions on Wikipedia get made and thus think that if they alone donât have the power to create change itâs not worth speaking up on the talk page.
I also read that people think the goal of Wikipedia is truth when it isnât itâs to reflect what secondary sources say. While it might be great to have an encyclopedia that has truth as a goal having a place where you find a synthesis of other secondary sources is valuable. Understanding that helps to know when itâs worth to speak up and when it isnât.
I turned this into a non-question post for you. (Aaron didnât know I could do that, because itâs not a normal admin option.)
I agree that people should edit a Wikipedia article directly or discuss on the talk page instead of complaining about it elsewhere. Leaving a comment on the talk page can be a quick way of helping shift the consensus for a controversial topic. In my experience though, unless itâs a very popular page, itâs often the case that when someone leaves a comment on the talk page describing overall changes that they want to be made, no one will respond and no changes will be taken. Or someone responds with an agreement or disagreement, and nothing happens. Thus, especially if itâs not a controversial change, be bold and directly edit the page yourself. The Visual Editor makes it very easy to make editsâyou donât need to know the wiki markup syntax. Make sure that your edits are balanced (so the article has a neutral point of view) and all claims in your edit are backed by citations to reliable sources. Watch the page so you can get notified for further changes to the page, such as if your edits are reverted in part or in whole in the coming days. If they are reverted and you disagree with those changes, politely discuss it on the talk page and ping them with {{Reply to|username}}. If itâs a semiprotected page or extended confirmed protected page that newbie editors donât have permission to edit, you can leave an edit request on the talk page detailing the concrete changes that you want to be made.
I agree with this advice.
I think a simple way to get involved with Wikipedia is to âadoptâ an article on an important topic you are familiar with but which is currently covered inadequately. This will allow you to see how your changes are received, develop a relationship with other editors who contribute regularly on that page, and experience the satisfaction of seeing the article (hopefully) improve over time in part thanks to your efforts.
Wikipedia sadly is not as democratic as you might think: https://ââwww.nakedcapitalism.com/ââ2021/ââ01/ââwikipedia-the-overlooked-monopoly.html
Some more anecdotal evidence: My life partner did her PhD on a historic consumer organization in my country and the additions, edits and corrigenda she proposed to the wikipedia article were rejected.
So Wikipedia is like the worst of both worlds if you compare it to historic encyclopedias (who were vast works with contents curated by professors/âexperts and professional editors): Like the old world, it still is not as democratic as we would want it to be, and it lacks the academic rigor we can expect from something like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Itâs just that the editing/âmoderation power has moved to faceless people on the internet.
Itâs hard to give much credence to an article which claims that wikipedia provides literally zero value. Itâs not perfect, and the rules about what evidence they will accept can be annoying at times, but I think the information value it has created is clearly enormous.
The fact that one person canât change something alone isnât evidence against democracy. If I say that I want my government to implement policy X and my government doesnât do it that doesnât mean that I donât live in a democracy.
Democracy actually needs the engagement of more people. Itâs frustrating to me to read a reddit thread about how a Wikipedia article is flawed, when half the amount of engagement that the reddit thread gets would likely be enough to change the Wikipedia article. This doesnât mean that I want people to organize together to go to a Wikipedia article. The EA community gotten in a few conflicts in the past with that and they donât need to be repeated.
Whether or not you like Wikipedia doesnât change that itâs a central part of the public narrative. Many people use it to inform themselves. Journalists frequently check the Wikipedia article to get an overview over the topic.
For the record I donât think this comment deserved negative karma