Re:The Shining light of Wikipedia and other disappointments
by zenkat on Sunday June 04, 2017 @06:51PM
(#14484118)
I asked for the other side of the story. RationalWiki appears to fit that bill. I made no judgments on the merits of either side of the squabble. I trust the readers of HN are capable of forming their own judgements based on available evidence.
Re:The Shining light of Wikipedia and other disappointments
by hoofish on Sunday June 04, 2017 @07:03PM
(#14484188)
you specifically said "who has tried to alter Wikipedia to support fringe scientists & alt-medicine gurus"
That narrative is from RationalWiki, and is misinformation. This is very clearly detailed on the website.
Re:The Shining light of Wikipedia and other disappointments
by cholantesh on Monday June 12, 2017 @09:11AM
(#14537072)
It isn't, though. I suspect you have only read Viharo's defense, which, tellingly, doesn't link to his RW article. It simply quotes from the preamble. The rest of the article expands significantly on it and cites his own words from Wikipedia talk pages.
Re:The Shining light of Wikipedia and other disappointments
by hoofish on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @02:31AM
(#14543197)
again, you're misinformed. it links DIRECTLY to the RW article, and that article is mentioned in many pages on WWHP.
It links to comments made on talk pages out of context, read the actual links to WP pages and you will see.
You list RationalWiki as the "other side of the story", yet did you note that article was written by the same editors he encountered on Wikipedia?
If you spend more time on the site, you will see that the case study involved intentional patience and only focused on non controversial biographical information.
You appear to suggest that the context of the biographies the author was editing on means he was promoting or editing false or misleading information, and therefore perhaps deserved the treatment.