User talk:Bon courage/The big mistake

Your definition and description is wrong in some cases

If people are outraged, it usually has something to do that Wikipedia is not depicting the full context based on the sources. Otherwise people would not complain, instead extending their intellectual horizon.

But if a Wiki Article is conflicting with the reality or information space, people will outrage, as long they considered multiple sources.

Even if we only talk about good sources. But even bad sources can be introduced to make the reader understand WHY it's something bad, especially in your conspiracy articles.

And you should really learn to read.

Greetz HubertSchuf (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we get lots of editors coming here to tell us the moon landings were faked. Bon courage (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sry 4 late reply, I was unjustly blocked for literally nothing - and admins still abuse their power xD

"tell us the moon landings were faked" - I mean there are "sources" out there for that. But they are not independent nor of quality XD

I understand your frustration with that but I am not one of them, and I do not refer to those "sources" (in science we do not even call them source, we just call them statement or lie/trash) xD

There's a thin line between that "trash" and good material. Ofc we focus on secondary literature, not on primary, as Wikipedia does not permit primary literature, except in very rare cases. HubertSchuf (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and sometimes the reality is too close to a conspiracy theory - in my experience. It's really hard to keep the trash separated from the facts and by them coming closer to "the truth" (which is not singular in any way). HubertSchuf (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again the WP:BIGMISTAKE. This encyclopedia is really just for providing a handy digest of what the WP:BESTSOURCES say about a topic. That's it. I mean seriously, that's it. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage and you think self-referencing your own policy is not your "BIGMISTAKE" :D

I agree to your point but there is more to it that must be understood. People use Wikipedia as authoritative overview source on a topic because it uses "the best sources" in an overview manner. So people will rely on Wiki info. Even malicious ones

If you think about the best sources you will end up in a problem. While in most cases the Wiki approach will lead to the correct results, there are always people on Wikipedia (whether it be left or right wingers) that try to exploit the authoritative manner and information advantage against the general public.

So that's why Wikipedia must also check whether from all points of view there is some kind of agreement or disagreement to it and clearly describe that one, it's part of the Wiki's transparency rules. Everything else will cause a flood from people like me.

People like me are educated folks that have a wider mindset than most people and can understand nuances between true and false, or what you say as "sources indicate or not". We can critically think about things and are not stuck with that simple box or mind of reference. But we are not part of the conspiracy theorists or people who spread lies. A huge difference between them and us is, we think based on the facts, evidence or what you may call sources.

Also, keep in mind the "best sources" can be heavily influenced by a actor and that will flow into Wikipedia. Such as Russian disinformation operations OR the infoops by the United States government OR the Big Pharma's lies on Wiki. HubertSchuf (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo would have been condemned as a fringe idiot on Wikipedia, which would have asserted as settled knowledge that the Sun went round the Earth. Wikipedia is just a supine patsy of mainstream thought (if it is published in the WP:BESTSOURCES). It does not aim to WP:RGW. Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage if Wiki is a encyclopedia it has to make [as we are living in the digital, real-time age] sure the knowledge is correct. Galileo should never initially appear as someone who is a idiot or conspiracy theorist in the first place.

Defacto as you show by these policies and correctly point out, Wiki is already a place for WP:RGW (tendenious editing and so on). That's why we have to think critically and counter-balance. HubertSchuf (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and you correctly say "mainstream thought" - which is dangerous too as it reinforces harmful thinking when knowledge is not corrected, as the best sources generally reinforce that frame of reference.

Not in all cases, but in most. HubertSchuf (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BIGMISTAKE. I shall repeat again: this encyclopedia is really just for providing a handy digest of what the WP:BESTSOURCES say about a topic. That's it. I suggest printing this out, taping it to the wall and repeating it to yourself until it sinks in. Bon courage (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can stick it to the mass of people understanding Wikipedia in a different way, as they are using it differently than you want them to use it. But people will use it how they use it, and you have to analyze, understand, accept that and accordingly adjust to it. That's how the real world works.

You are also exposing the bias of Wiki by saying it would only align to "mainstream thought", basically ignoring whether something is correct or not (which can be verified by using secondary sources and critical thought already, as you learn most Bachelor studies).

Widen your horizon and you will understand.

HubertSchuf (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: GPT is just a text generator but mass of people use it as source of trust, as last word (I do not, GPT is too flawed for that, but GPT is good with language, so a independent summary of things - sometimes it works, sometimes not, manual checks required)

So as malicious actor we just need to inject harmful thought and we get a really nice and toxic environment ;) Prompt Engineering is beautiful, isn't it? Social Engineering too. HubertSchuf (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idiots misuse sources. We see it every day. Not something we can fix. Bon courage (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about misuse. It's about intentional exploitation and we have to get resistant to it as society. That's why almost all other Wikis have decided to focus on contextualization and critique as well. If something is in doubt among a group say that - transparency is key. It does not state whether it's true or false but what the facts (good sources among a topic) say.

@Bon courage A HubertSchuf (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a total misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is. You need to print and tape the message above and follow the instructions. Bon courage (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why I would need to print and tape your message on my walls. To me it sounds like you want me to follow your imposed rules. But I am fully supportive of common guidelines and rules applying for everyone. HubertSchuf (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]