News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Facebook, Axios and NBC Paid to Whitewash Wikipedia Pages. Parent comment

Re:Facebook, Axios and NBC Paid to Whitewash Wikipedia Pages by tomp on Friday March 15, 2019 @12:15PM (#19401018)
It should be neutral, and/or jnclude the pro-GG view, not just the anti-GG view. A few concrete points: (1) there was extreme harassment from both sides; (2) targeted harassment against some women doesn’t mean “mysoginy” (just like targeted harassment against Hitler doesn’t mean “misandry”); (3) the overarching theme isn’t “right-wing reaction against progressivism”, but a reaction against feminist politically-correct politics that started to affect the gaming world (that was previously happily genderless, offensive and agenda-free).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook, Axios and NBC Paid to Whitewash Wikipedia Pages by ceejayoz on Friday March 15, 2019 @01:17PM (#19401850)
Expanding that beyond GG for a moment...

Does every Wikipedia article have to include both pro- and anti- views? Do they need to be given equal weight?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook, Axios and NBC Paid to Whitewash Wikipedia Pages by tomp on Friday March 15, 2019 @03:11PM (#19403125)
That’s what I would expect from a generic (as opposed to clearly biased in the title, like “Christian view on creation of man” or something) encyclopaedic article on a topic, yes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook, Axios and NBC Paid to Whitewash Wikipedia Pages by ceejayoz on Friday March 15, 2019 @03:13PM (#19403155)
So the Earth article should give equal time to flat-Earthers, the Apollo moon landings should devote 50% to the "it was faked" idea, and Queen Elizabeth II's page should talk about her being a lizard person?

I think I'd prefer a useful encyclopedia.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook, Axios and NBC Paid to Whitewash Wikipedia Pages by tomp on Friday March 15, 2019 @04:08PM (#19403732)
No, but the “Moon landing controversy” article should.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook, Axios and NBC Paid to Whitewash Wikipedia Pages by ceejayoz on Friday March 15, 2019 @04:17PM (#19403843)
The "Moon landing conspiracy theories" page on Wikipedia appears to consist of a thorough debunking. The only 50/50 it does is presenting the claims before knocking them down at length.

(As, I suggest, is appropriate.)

[ Parent | on HN ]