I there a technical term (or psychological or like a fallacy) for when someone sees something really good but not perfect and thus believes that the slightest bad thing they detect makes it all totally worthless?
@wordmark@Valmond@FreedomAdvocate Wikipedia is not written by an agency or organisation. It’s written by us. We decide what’s in it. It’s like democracy: You have to work on keeping it, else it gets lost.
One advantage of #Wikipedia is, that it is a central source of information for everyone. If we loose that and everyone has their own source of information without the need of arguing what the truth is, societies gets more fractured.
Wikipedia is already fractured into different languages.
@wordmark@Valmond@FreedomAdvocate I agree that the mechanisms of Wikipedia to discuss, to argue and to find truth are not good. In the end it’s an old website that hasn’t changed much. The biggest innovation was WikiData, which isn’t used as much as it should be in the Wikipedia.
So what we need is a system that works differently, but as centrally and openly as Wikipedia. We don’t need another instance, where just a different group of people writes the texts.
I there a technical term (or psychological or like a fallacy) for when someone sees something really good but not perfect and thus believes that the slightest bad thing they detect makes it all totally worthless?
yes, it’s called the nirvana fallacy.
deleted by creator
@wordmark @Valmond @FreedomAdvocate Wikipedia is not written by an agency or organisation. It’s written by us. We decide what’s in it. It’s like democracy: You have to work on keeping it, else it gets lost.
One advantage of #Wikipedia is, that it is a central source of information for everyone. If we loose that and everyone has their own source of information without the need of arguing what the truth is, societies gets more fractured.
Wikipedia is already fractured into different languages.
@wordmark @Valmond @FreedomAdvocate I agree that the mechanisms of Wikipedia to discuss, to argue and to find truth are not good. In the end it’s an old website that hasn’t changed much. The biggest innovation was WikiData, which isn’t used as much as it should be in the Wikipedia.
So what we need is a system that works differently, but as centrally and openly as Wikipedia. We don’t need another instance, where just a different group of people writes the texts.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
The one Thing that Wikipedia absolutly needs is: much more contributors. The second most needed Thing is even more contributors.
deleted by creator