this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2026
82 points (92.7% liked)

Technology

89137 readers
6113 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
82
Wikipedia’s Pyrrhic Victory (www.newyorker.com)
submitted 6 days ago by antonim@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

One “very senior Wikimedian,” we are told, “came to think of the project as a ‘city built by Asperger’s.’ ”

If you get the paywall, it's readable at http://archive.today/R2rnW

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 19 points 6 days ago (3 children)

If non-notable articles were never deleted, millions of people and companies would create articles about themselves for promotion.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Self promotion is a different rule that exists. Also, their threshold for what constitutes 'notability' is ridiculously arbitrary and bureaucratic, or at least it was in the past. I doubt it's changed.

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's notable if there are reliable sources about it. If there are no reliable sources about it, you wouldn't be able to write much about the topic anyway. Unless you conduct your original research.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago

In theory. I've seen firsthand the number of arguments about what constitutes notability and reliable sources. It's not for nothing that this is the biggest divide among Wikipedia editors.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

So? If the information they provide is accurate, what's the big deal?

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 11 points 6 days ago

Because an encyclopedia with millions of promotional articles would lose not only its objectivity, but also crater the standard of quality of the average Wikipedia article.

The Cebuano Wikipedia is the poster child of a project expanding beyond its scope: millions of articles generated by a bot with no one there to edit them after they're created.

[–] Damaskox@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

A genuine question: Is a Wikipedia article supposed to be written from an objective perspective?

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Yes; all content must be written from a neutral point of view.