The best counter to bias is in an openly edited project is contributing corrected information with high quality sources. So instead of spending their time doxxing wikipedia editors, how about actually contributing quality data?

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (3 children)

Wikipedia has been doxing their own editors for decades. Heritage is just using the public data. They're still fash but wikipedia isn't much better.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Sure. I absolutely hate that "anonymous" edits aren't actually anonymous, and you basically need a user account to not get insta-reverted. It would be pretty cool if they had a trust system where untrusted edits go to an approval queue or something and you gradually build up trust by not doing graffiti everywhere.

[–] sureok@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

How would that work without accounts?

I'd like to make anonymous edits to WP and personally resent their lack of accommodation of that. But I don't have a very solid proposal as to how it could be done. So must forgive them.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

You'd need some kind of account system, but you could probably get away with just signing your edits. If the same key is used to sign an edit, then it can be considered the same "user" even if there's no persistent account associated w/ it. You'd need to register a public key, but that's about it.

load more comments (5 replies)