this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
68 points (89.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35709 readers
3262 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I have a vague idea to create a wiki for politics-related data. Basically, I'm annoyed with how low-effort, entirely un-researched content dominates modern politics. I think a big part of the problem is that modern political figures use social media platforms that are hostile to context and citing sources.

So my idea for a solution is to create a wiki where original research is not just allowed but encouraged. For example, you could have an article that's a breakdown of the relative costs to society of private vs public transportation, with calculations and sources and tables and whatnot. It wouldn't exactly be an argument, but all the data you'd need to make one. And like wikipedia, anyone can edit it, allowing otherwise massive research tasks to be broken up.

The problem is - who creates a wiki nowadays? It feels like getting such a site and community up and running would be hopeless in a landscape dominated by social media. Will this be a pointless waste of time? Is there a more modern way to do this? All thoughts welcome.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

I have a vague idea to create a wiki for politics-related data. Basically, I’m annoyed with how low-effort, entirely un-researched content dominates modern politics.

So my idea for a solution is to create a wiki where original research is not just allowed but encouraged.

these two statements are entirely contradictory. The purpose of the NOR ban on wikipedia itself is precisely because OR is almost always not researched at all, and is only presented as "research" to spackle a veneer of credibility over the top of what are really sock-puppet arguments.

I think Wikis themselves are more useful than ever but I don't know how well a political Wiki would go over. I could see it being very easy to get accused of being biased in one direction.

You may want to do some digging and see if something similar exists though I doubt a lot of websites would be open to outside submissions.


If you do decide to create one I would be interested to see a historical background section. For example if a page is dedicated to improving failing infrastructure in the United States including when and why it was developed, prior large pushes for maintenance, and the history of funding.

I feel like knowing how things go the way that they are should be a bigger part of people's political views. That is unrelated to your question though; just an idea.

[–] super_user_do@feddit.it 5 points 1 year ago

Wikis are very common, idk what you're talking about

[–] simple@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

The problem isn't creating the wiki itself but how you're going to manage a sensitive topic like politics. You're frustrated with all the low quality political content but if your wiki is community driven, what's the guarantee that it stays high quality and doesn't devolve into a flamewar full of misinformation and dubious sources like everything else? It's hard to imagine people will contribute to something like this without an agenda, so unless you're prepared to face that storm I'd vote to not do it.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I use Wikipedia on the regular, just saying.

[–] Kinglink@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

politics-related data

Yes.

I’m annoyed with how low-effort, entirely un-researched content

And you think a wiki will solve that? Lol.... yeah this is a bad idea.

No one should trust a wiki for anything other than information on a tv show or a boss, and even then trust but verify. And this is something that you would need to trust.

You're better off creating a blog, or find already established blogs who do this, because stuff like Five Three Eight exists. '

"Original research"

There's a reason peer reviewed research is practically required, and even then there's HUGE problems with that model, but having people go out for original research is basically saying "Let people make up bullshit."... not a good idea.

[–] blightbow@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

having people go out for original research is basically saying “Let people make up bullshit.”… not a good idea.

Yeah, I've seen what this does to fan wikis. There is a certain type of personality that thrives on having their version of reality be what is reflected in wiki articles, and they will revert any and all attempts to excise their personal theories. If admins step in to break up the edit war, it's clearly "favoritism" and "admins should only exist in service to the users and have no say in content". Some of these wiki addicts go out of their way to become the wiki equivalent of Reddit's supermods in order to ensure that they have the upper hand in these content disputes.

"No original research" is one of the core pillars of your ability to push back against delusional nonsense. If you're determined to live without it, you need to have very strong content standards in its place to decide the difference between objective fact and someone's conspiracy vomit. Good content policies save you from having to waste a bunch of time on bad faith arguments about why the content of your wiki pages have to abandon fact for massaging someone's ego.

(Somewhat of a tangent, but if you're bored you can look into a brief history of AlexShepherd's crusade against circumcision in the Silent Hill fandom. He's not the only person I've seen thrive on wikis who don't adopt an original research policy, but definitely the most entertaining read.)

[–] BiNonBi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

My go to with all projects like this is if it worth it if ends up it's just you doing it for yourself. 99% of these projects attract no one but their creators.

So if you want to make a wiki for your own reference or to be able to link to in relevant conversation or for whatever reason you want to for yourself, and accept that no one else may not contribute or even care, go for it. If you just want this to exist but not put in the effort, you are probably better off seeing if someone else is doing something similar.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

Go for it idk

[–] fraydabson@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Similar to what others said my main thought is how to have unbiased moderation of the content. Since anyone can edit anyone can try to spin their own story instead of reflecting the true idea of the website. If there is moderation to prevent any bias on either side and only allow for the data that viewers can draw their own viewpoint on, would be great but sounds like it would rely on a lot of people to help moderate the bias.

I do not know a lot about how wikiapedia operates as far as their moderation. It seems it’s gotten so big that any topic with more than 1 person interested in it will have people editing out bad content.

With the more niche wikis out there most the people who have interest in them are interested in keeping it honest.

With politics your bringing in a wide demographic with a lot more room for people trying to spin their own narrative.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I just had a thought: what would happen if the “articles” on a wiki were all AI generated, using comments and edits on the initial data as the prompts?

So you could write up a good set of content, but then the AI would filter it to generate the main page, with links back to all the supporting content. Any edits would be submitted as more supporting content and no direct editing would be allowed.

Sure, it could be gamed, but it would ease the moderation load significantly. New generated main page content would still need to be reviewed before a new generation would be accepted.

[–] Seraph@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago
[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not understanding why you need to reinvent the wheel here, you can just leverage Wikipedia to accomplish your goal (to a degree). Take the entry for public transport: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport

There are sections on the impacts and challenges of public transit. If you feel it's lacking in factual peer reviewed information regarding the financial benefits, just go ahead and add it. The only challenge will be if you don't want to conform to Wikipedia's moderation rules, in which case you're probably better off just making your own website/blog, but you'll lose the community aspect.

As for more true political topics, balletopedia already exists, and quite frankly, it's an excellent resource. If I were you I'd spend my time contributing to resources that are already popular than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Unless you get really lucky, good quality Wikipedia edits will have a much larger impact than a website run out of your basement.

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I totally see your point. It still feels like wikipedia is missing something - like if I were trying to debate my uncle on whether its fair to tax people for public transportation, I'm not sure if this article would really get me the quick statistics I'd be looking for. But in order to find out why not and clarify the idea a bit I think I'll try to make a wikipedia article like the one I'm thinking of and see how it goes.