A huge problem is that there’s a lot of capital invested in influencing public opinion. In the last decade, projects that on the surface look like they are about improving epistemic norms have usually been captured to enforce specific political agenda.
Information warfare is important for the shape of our information landscape. You had the Biden administration on the one hand spreading antivax information in Malaysia and asking Facebook not to take down the bots they were using to spread their antivax information while at the same time pressuring Facebook to censor truthful information about people talking about side effects they personally have experienced from vaccines from which Western companies as opposed to China profits.
As far as Wikipedia goes, it’s important to understand what it did in the last years. As Katharina Mahar said, truth is not the goal of Wikipedia. It’s to summarize what “reliable sources” say. When what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources on a topic have a bias, Wikipedia by design takes over that biases.
Wikipedia idea of reliable sources where a Harvard professors publishing a meta review can be considered less reliable than the New York Times is a bit weird but it’s not inherently inconsistent.
A huge problem is that there’s a lot of capital invested in influencing public opinion. In the last decade, projects that on the surface look like they are about improving epistemic norms have usually been captured to enforce specific political agenda.
Information warfare is important for the shape of our information landscape. You had the Biden administration on the one hand spreading antivax information in Malaysia and asking Facebook not to take down the bots they were using to spread their antivax information while at the same time pressuring Facebook to censor truthful information about people talking about side effects they personally have experienced from vaccines from which Western companies as opposed to China profits.
As far as Wikipedia goes, it’s important to understand what it did in the last years. As Katharina Mahar said, truth is not the goal of Wikipedia. It’s to summarize what “reliable sources” say. When what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources on a topic have a bias, Wikipedia by design takes over that biases.
Wikipedia idea of reliable sources where a Harvard professors publishing a meta review can be considered less reliable than the New York Times is a bit weird but it’s not inherently inconsistent.