Tech HOW SOCIAL MEDIA ENDANGERS KNOWLEDGE

[Denny Crane]

https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-fate-shows-how-the-web-endangers-knowledge/

WIKIPEDIA, ONE OF the last remaining pillars of the open and decentralized web, is in existential crisis.

This has nothing to do with money. A couple of years ago, the site launched a panicky fundraising campaign, but ironically thanks to Donald Trump, Wikipedia has never been as wealthy or well-organized. American liberals, worried that Trump’s rise threatened the country’s foundational Enlightenment ideals, kicked in a significant flow of funds that has stabilized the nonprofit’s balance sheet.

That happy news masks a more concerning problem—a flattening growth rate in the number of contributors to the website. It is another troubling sign of a general trend around the world: The very idea of knowledge itself is in danger.

 

[riverman]

Pretty much all knowledge as we know it is a traffic signal....most of it flickering yellow caution...occasionally a green light connects with our value systems and we see truth in it.....the idea that translations are accurate is rarely the case....I think that alone is a process of elimination..I watch films in Mandarin pretty often and you'll see someone say they're going to go home and hang out and the subtitles say they're going home to hang themselves....I don't trust WikiLeaks to be what folks think it's cracked up to be.....flickering caution light....I read a lot....but truth is something that comes more from wisdom than knowledge and too few folks own their own thoughts....since TV, it's become something to consume and regurgitate...so I shut off the TV long ago...the culture of conflict is strong with social media.....

 

[Denny Crane]

WikiPedia, not WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks simply published and indexes troves of documents of various origins. I've not seen any claim that the content of those documents are faked.

In any case, WikiPedia has had issues with GW Bush's page being constantly defaced during his presidency, and a constant battle between left/right editors making the content. At least there's discussion to go with it to explain how the content was arrived at.

 

[riverman]

WikiPedia, not WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks simply published and indexes troves of documents of various origins. I've not seen any claim that the content of those documents are faked.

In any case, WikiPedia has had issues with GW Bush's page being constantly defaced during his presidency, and a constant battle between left/right editors making the content. At least there's discussion to go with it to explain how the content was arrived at.

Blurry this morn...my bad but I think the same applies....I read an article questioning just how neutral WikiLeaks is...they never leak things from several regions of the world for some strange reason....and they splintered over the neutrality issue with Assange...who knows?

 

[Denny Crane]

Blurry this morn...my bad but I think the same applies....I read an article questioning just how neutral WikiLeaks is...they never leak things from several regions of the world for some strange reason....and they splintered over the neutrality issue with Assange...who knows?

They became famous during the W administration, leaking documents stolen from his administration.

If you have examples of anything they've sat on or squashed, I'm interested.