this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
478 points (92.8% liked)

Fediverse

17776 readers
47 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Finally. Hope this takes off and breaks wikipedia's biased monopoly on knowledge.

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Idk man I'd say wikipedia is probably 95% great. The political stuff will always have it's issues, sure, but most of it is quite good info.

I'm all for competition though. I hope this one takes off as well.

[–] mukt@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

95% of stuff relevant to you ≠ 95% of all stuff.

[–] jackpot@lemmy.ml -3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

'biased monopoly' what are you talking about, everything is sourced and open

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

You can get specific about certain articles needing improvement, but to call all of Wikipedia generally biased without any proof seems like a pretty red lil flag

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

‘biased monopoly’ what are you talking about, everything is sourced and open

The heart of narrative control on Wikipedia is controlling what standards of evidence need to be met and what sources are acceptable. An easy example of this would be the argument over adding an entry for Thomas James Ball to the List of Political Self-Immolations. Before they finally gave in and accepted it, there was a push to establish a standard for entries on the list that almost no existing entry on the list met and apply that standard to determine if Thomas James Ball should be included, while painting it as though the process were neutral.