83
Wikipedia’s Pyrrhic Victory
(www.newyorker.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2026
83 points (94.6% liked)
Technology
89039 readers
2773 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Internet Archive and Libgen are incomparably bigger.
I mean, a municipal dump contains arguably many more printed words than Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it contains more information, nor is it easily cataloged for access.
I'm noticing a pattern of you reducing arguments down to meaningless and out-of-context metrics in this entire comment section.
Have you actually ever used Libgen and Internet Archive (its book collection specifically)?
Yes. Libgen.whatever is a russian-operated "free" library.
I can find José Saramago books there, but no info on the author himself.
Are you trying to compare libgen with Wikipedia? They don't really serve the same purpose.
Pirate library. I don't think this aspect has to be downplayed.
You can find his biographies, criticism, analyses, the very sources that Wikipedia is using.
They don't serve the same purpose, correct. But as far "repositories of knowledge" go (the phrase that kicked off this sub-discussion), they count as such, and they are massive, I have no doubt they're bigger than WP. English Wikipedia has 7 million articles while Anna's Archive (which mirrors Libgen and a big part of Internet Archive - but far from all of it!) says it has 70 million books and 200 million articles. Cut the number in half, or even in third due to duplicates if you want, to get a more realistic number, it's still bigger.
Sure, yes. Acknowledged.
It is true that the referenced information is present in libgen, but it is not succinctly summarized for consumption, and that is the function Wikipedia fulfills for most users.
I can understand the pitfalls of allowing updates from the public, but I think it's widely accepted that Wikipedia does more good than bad.
It's really difficult to understand your point of view on this, especially when you indulge in semantics arguments.
You may have noticed that this is precisely what I've disagreed on with two other users in this thread, who claimed that Wikipedia should contain as much information as possible. I agree with you, it is good to have an encyclopedia that summarises the most important, and directs towards further materials for further deeper study.
Again, the point I disagreed on with the other poster is simply on what's the "biggest repository of human knowledge ever". You seem to agree that the shadow libraries are bigger, and that settles it, we don't have to disagree further. Being the biggest repository does not, of course, mean that it should be the only repository, that others are bad, or whatever else. Different repositories can fulfill different roles in the sharing of knowledge.
I don't think I disagreed with the latter point, except when I mentioned the smaller borderline fascist wikis somewhere ITT. When it comes to English and some other large WPs I definitely don't disagree.
Maybe you're just supposing that we disagree on something when we really don't, so you can't lead the discussion to the point where we'd finally clearly disagree. I provided some criticism of Wikipedia, that doesn't mean I think it's bad wholesale. Wikipedia is complicated. I've spent quite a while editing it, as well as using traditional encyclopedias. I just negatively reacted to some comments in this thread, the harsh dismissal of traditional encyclopedias, and the somewhat overrated view of Wikipedia.
The reason I down voted you is you're ignoring duplicative information...
And mainly because instead of asking questions to learn, you just went off with a halfbaked thought and presented it like it was fact.
Do better
I certainly ignored "duplicative information", because I don't even know what those words are supposed to mean.
You haven't asked any questions either, you made up a claim and are now seemingly very insulted when an obvious correction is pointed out. Those two sites contain hundreds upon hundreds of thosands of entire books, entire encyclopedias, and god knows how many scientific articles, inevitably way more stuff than Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia editor should have them open in a tab while editing ready to verify the existing sources and look for new ones.
How many websites about Pokemon do you think are archived?
How much of that info is duplicative (meaning it exists multiple times)?
If 2 gigs of data all says charmander evolves into charazard, why is that worth more than a single text string saying it once?
I already understand it...
You don't even know what "duplicative" means, and were too lazy to even look it up, you just wanted to argue about how your opinion matters more than facts.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duplicative
With no context I didn't know what you might have meant by "duplicative information". Now it makes sense, apparently you think Internet Archive is just Wayback Machine, with its archived duplicate Pokemon websites. Which is comically false, try to dial down your arrogance. Perhaps you could have asked questions about whether I really think Internet Archive's collection of Pokemon sites contains more knowledge than Wikipedia, or maybe something else:
What did they do with the books after they scanned them?
Made them free to access and download, if the book is in the public domain or under a Creative Commons license. Allowed limited access if copyrighted (through some weirdly legal solution where they technically "loan" the book to you while you view it in your browser), although that option has been partly limited in the recent years due to lawsuits by book publishers.
https://archive.org/details/texts
No I mean like the physical books. What happened to them after they were scanned?
Congrats bud.
You kept going long enough I'll never try to clarify anything for you again, every single reply you make to one of my comments from here on out will not receive any further clarification and you'll always believe it's 100% correct.
It won't be, but I won't see it to tell you that anymore.
So you win, enjoy it.
Edit:
2-0 bud!
Apparently I blocked your original account already, the streak continues
As if you tried to clarify anything up until this point anyway 🤣
Eh. They've got a history out the ass of being rude shits, you're just the latest. Block them and move on.