@jmp said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@jmp said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@remi said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Rhywden I know, it's probably fraught with more problems than it solves (given that it wouldn't solve many ;-) ). But I'm sticking to my initial point, that Wikipedia (and other similar projects with far-reaching goals) should somehow recognize that some topics are out of their reach.
I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theory nut, but just like TV, Wikipedia has become very influential source of "wisdom", so there is much value in controlling the content of Wikipedia and making it cover controversial topics in a particular way. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia owners realize that. Avoiding controversial topics would make it less useful for shaping people's opinions (because you don't need to shape them on non-controversial topics to start with).
Making things a 'controversial opinion' then becomes the way you control the content of wikipedia. Say you're a PR person for some product that causes significant harms and you're trying to avoid regulation - think cigarettes or asbestos.
In a world where Wikipedia covers controversial topics, you try to get your bullshit studies and paid misinformers present on Wikipedia. You know the sort of thing: "Some scientists claim that $PRODUCT causes $ISSUE [1][2][3]. Others disagree [4][5][6].", followed by huge sections on the physical basis and the epidemiology and specific studies and what the US Surgeon General thinks etc.
In a world where Wikipedia doesn't cover controversial topics, you just get it marked controversial in Wikipedia and now the article just says "$PRODUCT is a thing. There is a controversy over its potential to cause $ISSUE [1][2][3]". That's it. Anyone wants further information, they have to find it from other sources, which means there's a nontrivial chance they're your PR source.
This isn't any better and is arguably worse.
It is definitely worse from the persuasion perspective. When people read something on Wikipedia, they're more likely to believe it than when it's somewhere else, similar to how they're going to believe NASA publications more than Youtube videos with yellow subtitles. Covering controversial topics on Wikipedia is more useful for shaping public's opinion than not doing it.
I disagree entirely. Maybe I'm cynical, but in my experience people are far more likely to believe Youtube videos with yellow subtitles or fancy PR campaigns than Wikipedia, NASA publications, or anybody with actual authority in the field.
Maybe if schools gave students a better grounding in scientific subjects, perhaps via a wide-ranging discussion of established scientific principles and the history of how those principles were established, even the ones that seem 'useless' to kids, things would be different. :P
(Of course then you'd have a problem with parents complaining about some of those established principles - evolution, greenhouse effect, etc..)
But there's less problems with basic principles.
No one questions that bacteria can rapidly evolve.
People question the assumption that since evolution is apparent, that everything evolved from primitive life.
People don't really question greenhouse gases.
They question that man can emit enough of an effect to drastically alter the climate.
The building blocks of scientific theory aren't really under the chopping block. It's the, lacking any other explanation, assumption of how those blocks are put together, and the fact that we can't perform a proper experiment (observation with a control group), and the level of certainty despite not having that proper experiment.
Public education drills into kids the proper form of an experiment. Then you say, "hey, there's no second Earth without humans on it, so why are scientists so sure. There's no way to observe the evolution chain, so why are scientists so sure."
There is a disconnect between the assumption of what must be lacking any evidence to the contrary, and truth (TM). There's a level of confidence in the assumption that doesn't seem logical.
If there was more humility in the discussion, along the lines of, "We don't know, but lacking other information, we see a trend we must act on / consider highly probable." I think they'd find more people willing to go along.
But that's not the language used. The language used is, "settled science", which implies "unquestionable, infallible." And that level of arrogance is what people are having a hard time getting past. So it becomes reasonable to question whether there is bias or motive, because this is contrary to the nature of science itself, being discovery, curiosity, and forever criticizing and questioning.
Under that suspicion, it becomes reasonable to question whether scientists are being persuaded under external influence, and given the political sphere exaggerating to the extremes, it's the number one suspect.
I don't really want to get into an argument about global warming or evolution here; not the appropriate forum etc.. Suffice to say I think I disagree with almost every statement you've just made.