this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1075 points (90.8% liked)

Showerthoughts

29805 readers
1109 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cricket97@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nah wikipedia has been taken over by politically motivated actors. I really enjoyed it when it was relatively agenda free. If you don't believe me go check the talk page of any controversial article.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Taken over" is a little strong. Anyone can edit a page, but you can see the edit history. That doesn't mean wikipedia is compromised. It means you need to be media literate. If there's too many bad faith edits, the article gets reverted and locked.

[–] cricket97@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Go look at some of the most active wikipedia contributors, they are mostly hyper political nerds. Wikipedia is heavily reliant on the social consensus of it's contributors. It's not a far out idea that there could be a slant among them.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just so you know, you can check any claim by going to the cited source. If there is no source, you're free to ask for one or ignore.

That's far better then other systems. It's also an encyclopedia, not a news paper. You shouldn't be using it for current events anyway.

[–] cricket97@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

curation can still skew towards one side. you know this, everyone knows this. just saying wikipedia used to better before it was taken over by ideologues.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is that the Wikipedia admins are arrogant. I suppose power corrupts

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd like an example of what you're talking about.

[–] hightrix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are tons. Use your favorite internet search tool and look for “Wikipedia editor controversy”. Happy reading!

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you favorite, uncited, pet political theory got deleted then?

[–] hightrix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve never edited a Wikipedia page.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok, cause you sound like one of those facebook moms saying "do your research" when you question them on their bleach enema treatments.

[–] hightrix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Are you incapable of searching the internet? Do you need me to do it for you?

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=wikipedia+controversy+editor

And because I know how hard it is to click the link above, here’s a couple results, you dullard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies

https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/wikipedia-fram-banning-editor-controversy.html

https://www.engadget.com/scots-wikipedia-230210674.html

I imagine you can figure it out from here. If you need, I can suggest a tutor to help you master the art of typing text into a text box and then clicking the button below it.