Hacker News

points by flexagoon 2 days ago | 0 comments

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Being as detailed as possible is its goal. Simple English Wikipedia exists for shorter easier to read versions of articles. Generally though, turning a complex topic into a fun easy read is the goal of good scientific journalism, which is also important but a separate effort from an encyclopedia.

[–] keiferski 2 days ago

No, that is not the point of an encyclopedia. The point is to condense an entry as much as possible while being thorough enough to cover most relevant information.

[–] pixl97 2 days ago

In some ways that was the limitation of physical paper and weight of the set.

A digital encyclopedia has different constraints, and the hard part was always trying to figure out what to leave out. Also in encyclopedias, you get what you get from the one or two people that worked on that particular article. If they had biases it would shape what everyone in the world saw. In an online article it can become a battle on what people want to see.

It is a difficult problem.

[–] 05hundred 2 days ago

"most relevant info" is highly subjective though. One mans "most relevant info" is another mans "unsatisfying read".

[–] gwbas1c 2 days ago

The difference with Wikipedia is that additional articles can be added for more details; they don't all need to be crammed into a single article.

[–] Clamchop 2 days ago

Encyclopedias are for summaries, not maximal detail. For that, you look at the source material.

[–] left-struck 2 days ago

From Wikipedia’s own guidance:

“An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...

[–] cj 2 days ago

I'm normally against conspiracy theories and BS like this, but...

There's a pretty stark difference between the first few paragraphs of the HIV/AIDS page and the first few paragraphs of the Type 2 Diabetes page.

Both are "factual", but when I read the HIV/AIDS page, I feel like someone is trying to convince me "HIV is not a bad disease".

[–] harrisi 2 days ago

I just read both and I'm not sure I understand what your point is here. I don't have much to say about the diabetes page other than there is some interesting (as well as unfortunate) information. The HIV page certainly doesn't seem as if it gives off the "not a bad disease" feeling. It lists an untreated life expectancy as 11 years, whereas the diabetes page lists an expected life expectancy of being reduced by 10 years. That certainly makes HIV more deadly. It's also made obvious that it's transmissible from normal sexual behavior, as well as being so for some time before one would even experience symptoms. It's definitely not a bed time story. If anything, I'd say the diabetes page is less scary in its overall presentation than it should be.

Obviously this is subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong, just genuinely curious at what made you think this. I'm not making assumptions, but perhaps you have (unfortunately) more personal and upsetting experiences with HIV/AIDS than with diabetes? I know that when I used to bartend at a neighborhood gay bar frequented by gen Xers it was very difficult to see and hear people lose or talk about losing their partners to something that alienated them even more than they already are/were.

It is interesting to think about how to convey information about these things though. I think it's probably a good thing to make HIV/AIDS not sound so terrifying. For pretty much every adult alive today, I'd assume, their idea of HIV/AIDS was something like being told it's a "gay disease" or that you can't touch people with it (thank you for your service, princess Diana) or some sort of anti-African racist nonsense. So conveying accurate information without bigotry, homophobia, or xenophobia is probably a good thing overall.

Also curious what sort of possible conspiracy would benefit from Wikipedia readers from not being more afraid of HIV/AIDS.

[–] cj 2 days ago

> just genuinely curious at what made you think this.

It feels like the first 2 paragraphs are doing a lot of work to downplay the seriousness of the illness:

- highlighting the "undetectable = untransmittable" PR campaign.

- reassurance that you can live a normal life with HIV, "die with virus, not of virus"

- reassurance that there's zero transmission risk with long term treatment

- reassurance that HIV is a "manageable chronic health condition"

After the first 2 paragraphs of the HIV article, I'm left thinking "okay, this isn't as bad as I thought" -- but maybe that's okay since historically there has been a lot of misinformation around HIV.

> what sort of possible conspiracy would benefit from Wikipedia readers from not being more afraid of HIV/AIDS.

De-stigmatization of HIV is the agenda. (An agenda I support)

[–] harrisi 2 days ago

I think I see your point. As you said, it's factual but it could be read as having an agenda. While we both support the agenda, it's not ideal to have one in the first place for a resource which should be as non-biased as possible, I suppose.

Always fun to think about different viewpoints. The same factual information could be represented (and is, as far as I know) in another way to denounce homosexuality and premarital sex, for example. Not making a statement about any particular belief system.

Thanks for the engaging think on a difficult night for me. I appreciate it. :)

[–] Feathercrown 2 days ago

I do think it's reasonable-- although certainly not the only valid approach-- to be aware of historical misinformation and emphasize certain facts more prominently to counteract it. It could skew the emphasis the other way in the long term, but the more immediate benefits of combating misinfo actively seem justifiable.

Hope your night works out well in the end.

[–] harrisi 2 days ago

One of the challenging things about sharing knowledge is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. With certain things there's definitely more complicated and nuanced approaches that may make sense. It's absolutely true that it can swing back too far - and that's usually the case with the most important areas of life, I'd argue. It's the cause of all sorts of seemingly-well-intentioned attempts at sharing information, as well as, of course, intentionally malicious forms of sharing information. That's what all propaganda does, realistically.

To bring it back to the topic, this is certainly a serious concern with AI-generated content. The world changes and evolves and things that are acceptable become unacceptable and vice versa. With training data potentially being stuck in time due to the majority of new data being generated, history could essentially just stop here. Or at least that is an idea that's been proposed. I'll be honest that I have thought that to be a genuine concern. However, objectively, novel ideas have come out of these new technologies. So it's a bit of a pickle to figure out how that relates to the human experience as time marches on.

Thank you. The world will keep on spinning. :)

[–] watwut 2 days ago

Those claims you complain about are true? HIV treatment made massive leaps and yes, regular injections in fact make your stop transmitting it. It is manageable chronic health condition at this point. It did NOT used to be so, it used to be deadly. But, medicine made massive improvements.

Also, after you had unsafe sex or accidentally touched infected injection, you can get early anti-hiv drugs - which means you will not get HIV.

I mean, what exact bias is there?