English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades

Re:English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades by CamperBob2 on Monday November 06, 2023 @06:10PM (#38170530)

I think what they're saying, though, is that constructive dialogue is impossible on this topic, making it a poor fit for Wikipedia regardless of one's personal opinions and beliefs on the subject.

Which, until the Chinese decide to be more forthcoming with the world, is likely true. We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades by nvm0n2 on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @03:58AM (#38174687)

Of course it's possible, there are more heated and controversial topics than this one out there and Wikipedia tries to cover them all. But due to its wiki workflow Wikipedia never tried to stop the most maniacal editors from dominating its content through sheer bloody mindedness.

> We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk.

So no crime can ever be solved unless the criminal admits guilt? We do accept that things can be proven about events without the perp admitting directly they did it, and COVID's origins as a genetic engineering experiment gone wrong have long ago passed the threshold of all reasonable doubt.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades by ckoerner on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @01:38PM (#38180907)

Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources to write an article. If the majority of sources were to claim X came from Y, then yes, but without that, we can't state it as fact.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades by nvm0n2 on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:11PM (#38183702)

Clearly it doesn't rely on reliable sources, otherwise they wouldn't be making such ridiculous claims.

[ Parent | on HN ]