How Wikipedia Admin David Gerard Launders His Grudges into the Public Record
Wikipedia administrator David Gerard meticulously evaluates source reliability, influencing content by deeming sources as Reliable or not. His actions spark conflicts among editors, emphasizing the platform's credibility importance.
Read original article
The article discusses Wikipedia administrator David Gerard's meticulous approach to ensuring the reliability of sources on the platform. Gerard, with over 200,000 edits, plays a significant role in determining which sources are deemed Reliable or not. He actively removes content from sources considered unreliable, sparking conflicts with other editors. Gerard's standards for Reliable Sources have led to disputes, with some questioning his indiscriminate removals. Notably, Gerard's treatment of various news outlets like Huffington Post, PinkNews, and Reason Magazine reflects his strong opinions on their reliability. He advocates for some sources while dismissing others based on his assessment of their credibility. Gerard's influence extends to shaping Wikipedia's content by determining what sources are considered trustworthy. His actions have sparked debates and conflicts among editors, highlighting the importance of source reliability in maintaining the platform's credibility.
Related
Nobody knows what's going on
Misinformation's impact on beliefs, reliance on unreliable sources, and human tendency to trust comforting information are discussed. Difficulty in discerning truth and consequences of widespread misinformation are highlighted.
Wikipedia: 97% of all articles lead to Philosophy
The "Getting to Philosophy" phenomenon on Wikipedia involves navigating articles by clicking the first non-parenthesized, non-italicized link, often leading to the Philosophy article. This trend, starting around 2008, saw a decrease in success rates in May 2024 due to a loop between Awareness and Psychology.
Readability: Google's Temple to Engineering Excellence
Google's strict readability process involves code approval by maintainers and readability mentors, shaping coding standards. Despite criticism, it enhances skills, maintains quality, and fosters global code consistency. A proposed "Readability Lite" aims for mentorship and quality without strict enforcement.
Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna
Wikipedia editors debate whether the page "Madonna" should focus on the singer or Mary, mother of Jesus. Despite historical significance, the singer remains the primary topic due to current usage.
Researchers discover a new form of scientific fraud: 'sneaked references'
Researchers identify "sneaked references" as a new form of scientific fraud, artificially boosting citation counts. Concerns arise over integrity in research evaluation systems, suggesting measures for verification and transparency. Manipulation distorts research impact assessment.
10 commentsThis happens everywhere, but having it happen on what is considered the main source of truth on the Internet is especially bad.
But on the first issue brought up in the article -- I am not going to read all the rest, too long:
Removing things cited to Free Beacon seems fair game. It isn't a reliable source. I know it hurts when your favourite site is declared as unreliable, but it happens to both extreme left and right rags.
There is a list of potential sources on Wikipedia and collective decisions about their reliability here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
My older articles didn't get flagged and were often quite successful on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=tracingwoodgrains.med... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32898573
I don't submit my own articles here but always appreciate when they reach the HN audience. I admit I find the system here quite opaque and have a hard time understanding what gets flagged and why. Is it because my articles often explore controversies and might get undue attention over some of the more technical content here? Is there some way I could reach out to someone for more info on why my articles keep getting flagged?
https://rdrama.net/post/215764/there-are-two-dozen-sexual-ha...
On the other hand, there was a question posted in the SlateStarCodex sub Reddit that asks "Why are there so many neoreactionaries in this sub?” and an answer, from someone who doesn't seem (like several other people answering) to be particularly averse to NeoReactionaries is:
> Anyway the reason is that neoreaction developed in the same Bay Area libertarian circles as LessWrong with a wide degree of community overlap
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9xm2p8/why_...
Related
Nobody knows what's going on
Misinformation's impact on beliefs, reliance on unreliable sources, and human tendency to trust comforting information are discussed. Difficulty in discerning truth and consequences of widespread misinformation are highlighted.
Wikipedia: 97% of all articles lead to Philosophy
The "Getting to Philosophy" phenomenon on Wikipedia involves navigating articles by clicking the first non-parenthesized, non-italicized link, often leading to the Philosophy article. This trend, starting around 2008, saw a decrease in success rates in May 2024 due to a loop between Awareness and Psychology.
Readability: Google's Temple to Engineering Excellence
Google's strict readability process involves code approval by maintainers and readability mentors, shaping coding standards. Despite criticism, it enhances skills, maintains quality, and fosters global code consistency. A proposed "Readability Lite" aims for mentorship and quality without strict enforcement.
Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna
Wikipedia editors debate whether the page "Madonna" should focus on the singer or Mary, mother of Jesus. Despite historical significance, the singer remains the primary topic due to current usage.
Researchers discover a new form of scientific fraud: 'sneaked references'
Researchers identify "sneaked references" as a new form of scientific fraud, artificially boosting citation counts. Concerns arise over integrity in research evaluation systems, suggesting measures for verification and transparency. Manipulation distorts research impact assessment.