Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-11-06/Recent research

← Back to Recent research

Discuss this story

• The lead article is very interesting and certainly worth reading. It touches on but doesn't go into detail about the two biggest structural features which have led to Wikipedia's success at excluding the "fringe", namely: a) there is only one Wikipedia article on a given topic, and everyone shares it & b) there is no way for misinformation to "go viral". As a wiki-journalist once noted, there is no "marketplace of ideas" on Wikipedia, where people pick and choose what content/perspective to consume. POVFORKS are rooted out. And any problems can be swiftly fixed by one or more bold editors without having to ask permission from either the purveyor of the misinformation or some faceless, massive central authority. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• People usually do not change their beliefs and behavior because they read or heard something somewhere. Neither Wikipedia, nor the media, nor social networks are apples from the Tree of Knowledge or channels for transmitting “infection” so that after reading some articles/messages people suddenly change dramatically. Deeply held views are not like air-borne illnesses that spread in a few breaths. Rather, contagions of behavior and beliefs are complex, requiring reinforcement to catch on[1][2]. At the same time, Wikipedia is not the only channel for people to obtain information.
  There is another danger that some will perceive excessive Proactive fringe busting as propaganda (especially if it becomes outdated), which may have poorly predictable consequences. Of course, due to polarization (Does Wikipedia community need to choose sides?) anything can be propaganda in one narrative or another, but still, in my opinion, nonetheless should avoid moral panics.--Proeksad (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks for sharing. I had the privilege to attend Wikimania live in Singapore, and I remember attending a talk wherein this research was presented. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, and the relevant part of that talk is linked at the end of the review. Thanks for coming to the presentation! Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Good, this is what should happen. Though Wikipeida isn't perfect, it is far more turstworthy than websites that spout misdirection and lies to further their untruthful agenda. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Hacker News thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38169202 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• The last transition is a serious problem, in my opinion. Wikipedia's own voice is less credible than the scientific community's, and not stating sources lessens an article's effect. And for those who disregard the scientific consensus, Wikipedia's directness not only lowers the information's impact, but also lessens the status (and perceived usefulness) of Wikipedia itself, thus making usefully covering fringe material even more difficult. --Yair rand (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• I wish they would have said "NPOV policy" instead of "NPOV guideline". I realize they aren't writing to an audience of Wikipedians, but using policy gets across the same meaning as guideline (and feels stronger, as it should be) and aligns with our own terminology. Photos of Japan (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  And it does align with WP:NPOV as well, as it is a policy. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see this shift documented. This is perhaps the simplest possible example, but it always bugged me when I'd see reports of ghost sightings in Wikipedia articles. What could be more of a scientific fringe viewpoint (i.e. pure nonsense) than somebody reporting that the dead are alive and walking around (well, not actually "walking")? And there was no evidence such as measurements, or anything beyond an occasional blurry photo. It was actually quite difficult at times to remove ghost sightings. Local newspapers would occasionally print them - perhaps trying to drum up local tourism. Most scientists wouldn't want to waste their time dubunking such an obvious fraud. Most wouldn't touch this stuff with a ten-foot pole (even if you could touch a ghost with a ten-foot pole). Well, I haven't seen a ghost sighting reported in Wikipedia for a long time now, and I hope we can keep it that way. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• I think that this study is focused on the English Wikipedia. It would be good to consider how the Croatian Wikipedia got hijacked by neo-Nazis for so long. Epa101 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  The Wikimedia Foundation commissioned a pretty informative report about this case, which I summarized last year in "Recent research" (aka the Wikimedia Research Newsletter).

  Also, a new paper just came out that posits some specific risk factors, see my tweet here - if you or other people reading along here happen to be interested in reading it and contributing a writeup to "Recent research", let me know!

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  @HaeB Thanks for letting me know. I'll read the report and let you know. Epa101 (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! To clarify just in case, the WMF's report (while worth reading too) has already been covered; the new paper by Kharazian, Starbird and Hill is what we could use a writeup for. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the study actually said that they only took the leads of English articles, not of Croatian or French or German ones. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think they could also compare the entire articles with the leads to determine where the former fall on the same 5-category scheme. That way, it can also be determined how the leads reflect the information on the entire articles. Also, they could have also compare the entire articles from different times as well to see how they changed over time on the scheme. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)