Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (214254)	10/9/2021 6:11:35 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 355627

I'm glad you had a chance to watch it and you found it interesting. >> He annoyed me by saying that there is not just one version of the facts, which is not, by definition, true. What he meant, it seems, was that there is a variety of perspectives/opinions on many things. There is not effectively a SSOT (Single Source of Truth) on many topics, which means that even though there IS a truth, we cannot agree on how or where it is found, hence, there is no meaning to the SSOT we have. Even when there is truth, it has no meaning in the context of the Wikipedia topic because people can't agree on where it is found. As an example, I've seen people continue to refer to Jan 6 as an insurrection, when de facto, it was not. But no matter how many times one says there was no insurrection, Jake Tapper and MSNBC will continue calling it an insurrection, because they are politically far left of center and for them, it is a bash on Trump. At the same time, I would never say there was an insurrection because the definition of insurrection has not been met. The same might happen between Bentway and me if we were looking in Wikipedia to decide whether there was an insurrection. But Sanger is upset more about the fact that people are manipulating the SSOT. In the course of the video, he mentioned that people are committed to "sit on" various Wikipedia pages and "fix them" if a reader in the public corrects a false statement (often, but not necessarily being paid to do so). And I agree with him it renders the entire compilation sort of useless in those contexts. One can imagine offices lining K-Street where people spend their days "fixing" Wikipedia entries. >> I would not have framed it just that way but that was my take as well on what Sanger was saying--that he didn't want a definitive source but rather a more comprehensive and collaborative source from many angles. from which the reader could draw. And in doing so, Wiki's use of secondary sources. That Sanger would prefer the latter, however, doesn't invalidate the former. I assumed since he was one of two founders, he knew what original concepts were and what it should be. But I have to say that controversial topics, I'd have to agree with him. There are PLENTY of places one can find subjective analyses; but from his comments, I took him to mean that when they began the goal was to provide well-rounded overviews on controversial topics so readers could have the facts and sort of decide what their truth would be. The example of Christianity was an excellent one: unlike Trump vs. Biden, typical visitors are probably seeking alternate perspectives, so just picking the Episcopalian version and disavowing the rest probably doesn't solve any great problems. I don't know who Sanger's co-developer was, but I assume he may have decided it was a platform for espousing preferences rather than providing a kind of outline of perspectives. I can understand his frustration with that; in the end, that is bound to make Wiki less useful; everyone wants to see his work product put to its highest and best use, I would think. But I'm glad you got to look at it. I think it is a significant interview (although I do believe he's been making some rounds lately).

To: Lane3 who wrote (214254)	10/10/2021 1:04:03 PM
From: combjelly	2 Recommendations Recommended By Lane3 Terry Maloney Respond to of 355627

What he meant, it seems, was that there is a variety of perspectives/opinions on many things. He isn't the only one who seems to confuse opinions with facts. After all, facts are just realities opinions. And all opinions have the same relevance. By the time the wikipedia got to any size, the time when we could ethically give equal weight to fringe ideas had passed. When mainstream thought becomes self-reinforcing and rigid, then giving serious thought to the fringe is a good thing. When the followers of fringe ideas start waving guns and credibly threatening the meaning of reality, not so much. And we are much closer to the latter than the former.