82
Wikipedia’s Pyrrhic Victory (www.newyorker.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by 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
[–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

“free” library

Pirate library. I don't think this aspect has to be downplayed.

I can find José Saramago books there, but no info on the author himself.

You can find his biographies, criticism, analyses, the very sources that Wikipedia is using.

They don't serve the same purpose, correct. But as far "repositories of knowledge" go (the phrase that kicked off this sub-discussion), they count as such, and they are massive, I have no doubt they're bigger than WP. English Wikipedia has 7 million articles while Anna's Archive (which mirrors Libgen and a big part of Internet Archive - but far from all of it!) says it has 70 million books and 200 million articles. Cut the number in half, or even in third due to duplicates if you want, to get a more realistic number, it's still bigger.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Pirate library

    Sure, yes. Acknowledged.

    It is true that the referenced information is present in libgen, but it is not succinctly summarized for consumption, and that is the function Wikipedia fulfills for most users.

    I can understand the pitfalls of allowing updates from the public, but I think it's widely accepted that Wikipedia does more good than bad.

    It's really difficult to understand your point of view on this, especially when you indulge in semantics arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 weeks ago

    but it is not succinctly summarized for consumption, and that is the function Wikipedia fulfills for most users

    You may have noticed that this is precisely what I've disagreed on with two other users in this thread, who claimed that Wikipedia should contain as much information as possible. I agree with you, it is good to have an encyclopedia that summarises the most important, and directs towards further materials for further deeper study.

    Again, the point I disagreed on with the other poster is simply on what's the "biggest repository of human knowledge ever". You seem to agree that the shadow libraries are bigger, and that settles it, we don't have to disagree further. Being the biggest repository does not, of course, mean that it should be the only repository, that others are bad, or whatever else. Different repositories can fulfill different roles in the sharing of knowledge.

    I can understand the pitfalls of allowing updates from the public, but I think it’s widely accepted that Wikipedia does more good than bad.

    I don't think I disagreed with the latter point, except when I mentioned the smaller borderline fascist wikis somewhere ITT. When it comes to English and some other large WPs I definitely don't disagree.

    Maybe you're just supposing that we disagree on something when we really don't, so you can't lead the discussion to the point where we'd finally clearly disagree. I provided some criticism of Wikipedia, that doesn't mean I think it's bad wholesale. Wikipedia is complicated. I've spent quite a while editing it, as well as using traditional encyclopedias. I just negatively reacted to some comments in this thread, the harsh dismissal of traditional encyclopedias, and the somewhat overrated view of Wikipedia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent