politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think they should. Wikipedia deserves to be based out of a country that supports the free flow of information. that is not the US.
The systemic toxicity issues in Wikipedia, many of which aren't even remotely related to Israel-Palestinian conflict, are increasingly looking like their Achilles heels.
Do you have a reliable source or examples for this toxicity, or is not being able to spread misinformation due to the rule of sourcing your claims the toxicity you're alluding to? No human structure will ever be perfect, but Wikipedia is a whole lot more credible than the organization that's currently threatening them, and the wackos celebrating it.
Edit: Out of curiosity, I've even given you the benefit of a doubt and looked through your reddit link you provided to someone else. Some of the examples provided there I have even heard of like the resulting AARoads wiki and the "definition of recession" controversy, but it does seem overshadowed by a mountain of spurious sources and examples.
I see references to bad moderation, and examples of incidents, some verifiable. This isn't surprising, nor would I try to dispute it.
I see claims of manipulation of the rules, that there are people who try to goad others into enforcement traps. And while there's no solid evidence, I don't doubt that.
What I'm not seeing is any suggestion of a solution. Wikipedia has a slew of rigorous mechanisms to allow for community moderation, resolution/stoppage of edit wars, and well documented escalation paths. It has flaws, and it is a work of volunteers with inherent biases, hence the systems to address them. Instead of curating a list of deficiencies, it may be more effective to start building a list of potential solutions to the deficiencies at hand. If you were to take the existing model of Wikipedia, it's rules, it's moderation... What would you change to improve it? And more importantly, how?
Please feel free to read this Reddit page which collects or summarizes a list of scandals and issues on Wikipedia.
Ah, you replied while I was reading and writing my edit. It works better as a reply here.
Out of curiosity, I've even given you the benefit of a doubt and looked through your reddit link you provided to someone else. Some of the examples provided there I have even heard of like the resulting AARoads wiki and the "definition of recession" controversy, but it does seem overshadowed by a mountain of spurious sources and examples.
I see references to bad moderation, and examples of incidents, some verifiable. This isn't surprising, nor would I try to dispute it.
I see claims of manipulation of the rules, that there are people who try to goad others into enforcement traps. And while there's no solid evidence, I don't doubt that.
What I'm not seeing is any suggestion of a solution. Wikipedia has a slew of rigorous mechanisms to allow for community moderation, resolution/stoppage of edit wars, and well documented escalation paths. It has flaws, and it is a work of volunteers with inherent biases, hence the systems to address them. Instead of curating a list of deficiencies, it may be more effective to start building a list of potential solutions to the deficiencies at hand. If you were to take the existing model of Wikipedia, it's rules, it's moderation... What would you change to improve it? And more importantly, how?
Good question. One good approach would be to create as many Wikipedia alternatives as you can, which is actually doable through newly released ibis.wiki. There's also Encycla, Justapedia and Namu.wiki to pick from, although because of Google is putting it high up in their search results, almost all earlier alternatives failed to get off the ground and gather enough momentum.
Cory Doctorow's theory of enshittification can be applied to this one. According to him there are four constraints that prevent enshittification: competition, regulation, self-help and labor. Normally the first and the third one would be sufficient but as I see that Wikipedia has entered a terminal phase with those sexual scandals and so on, which would cause the Internet to turn against Wikipedia overnight, all the constraints would therefore have to be activated in this case. A likely result would entail Wikipedia liquidating and getting absorbed into more better, successor encyclopedic organizations, like how the League of Nations folded into the United Nations at the end of WWII.
what a weird, out-of-pocket thing to say