thinking about it, if you want to change the world, editing Wikipedia is probably the best value for effort
i don't mean maliciously. I just mean writing about what you care about.
- it/they/he
- knightly.space/
One of those furries that makes the internets go.
Loves to argue politics, but sometimes doesn't know when to quit.
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @NireBryce's post:
that reminds me I need to finish writing more about the History of a Local Cool Rock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussel_Rock) because there's some really fun stuff like when they built a landfill on two fault lines on a crumbling cliff by the sea and also directly on top of a known shell mound that provided artifacts of the native people that had barely been excavated yet (and now there's a lot of effort in containing the landfill that really wants to slide into the ocean)
not to mention the cave tunnel right by it made by some wealthy railroader with a shitload of dynamite, but it's also right by the ocean and kept getting swallowed by the sea, so now it's just a Weird Rock Tunnel that's almost always floodedd
maybe not the highest impact edit, but for some reason, my brain made me read a whole bunch about that rock at the time
anything helps, in the end, when it isn't a slanted lie like some of the uh, articles about germany.
people wondering about the rock might get them to learn about the rest. my general strategy with wikipedia is do things that will trap them in wikipedia, doing my part to accidentally dismantle ignorance one cool rock slash shell mound slash landfill at a time
yeah!! although it has its problems, its also a huge de-facto knowledge source for a whole lot of people. It's honestly great to contribute whenever possible
I've also had a surprising amount of success when editing politician's pages, even when adding their various controversies and bad takes, although sometimes it takes an un-revert or two with explanations and "please see the citation", or "I don't think I've seen that rule before, can you show it to me?"
it's also a little exhausting, but I really like the idea of making information more freely available however possible :)
we've thought of trying to revise some chemical articles, but who wants to get in a fight with some Wikipedia nerd's territory? is there really value in editing Wikipedia vs. simply writing one's own knowledge base and making it public? Wikipedia is...well, honestly, I think most of it's written to an extremely low standard of quality, and I think it's kind of an embarrassment as a resource, to be honest. but maybe you can tell that I'm sour about the failure of the Internet's promise. the future looked so much brighter in 1992 ~Chara
I have a feeling that if I tried to use Wikipedia for something like leftist discourse it would go very badly very quickly. Still, you make a good point in general.
the worst way to redirect an asteroid is to slam into it -- it's fuel inefficient, but the only option if you need speed.
the most efficient way to redirect asteroids is to, further out in their path, intercept them and use the mass of a small satellite to gently drift the orbit with their mutual gravity, boosting occasionally in one direction to make your orbit 'pull' further that way, so it misses the earth. So, too, with wikipedia edits. Facts tend to have a left-wing bias.
Facts do tend to have a left-wing bias, but academia does not as much, and a lot of the relevant crowds practically worship academia.
Still, again you're right that we should at least try more. Like we think it's really not always as simple as it sounds, but right now we're not even trying which definitely won't make any change.