Technology

59590 readers

4948 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

518

How do people find good information on the internet these days? (programming.dev)

submitted 1 year ago by catch22@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

133 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It used to be that you would do a search on a relevant subject and get blog posts, forums posts, and maybe a couple of relevant companies offering the product or service. (And if you wanted more information on said company you could give them a call and actually talk to a real person about said service) You could even trust amazon and yelp reviews. Now searches have been completely taken over by Forbes top 10 lists, random affiliate link click through aggregators that copy and paste each others work, review factories that will kill your competitors and boost your product stars, ect.... It seems like the internet has gotten soooo much harder to use, just because you have to wade through all the bullshit. It's no wonder people switch to reddit and lemmy style sites, in a way it mirrors a little what kind of information you used to be able to garner from the internet in it's early days. What do people do these days to find genuine information about products or services?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Back in the day, Wikipedia was so neutral that they had people arguing how to write articles from a non-human POV. Yes, certain articles get political, but that is when the talk page arguments, counter-arguments, and linked ARBICOM evidence pages give you a good lesson on what people think are fact and opinion. I haven't been a editor for a while, is wikipedia not a hotbed of nerds who have to be in alignment with the facts regardless of what current political discourse says is right nowadays?

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago

so neutral that they had people arguing how to write articles from a non-human POV.

Academics have since acknowledged the impossibility of achieving this fantasy "unbiased" perspective.

give you a good lesson on what people think are fact and opinion.

This has been such an incredible change to Wikipedia's work, allowing dedicated spaces to talking about rhetoric and talking points for readers to learn.

facts regardless of what current political discourse says is right

Yeah, more or less. We are always free to check the sources, which is also a part of what Wikipedia nerds debate - what is the best resource to link to for those who need more info?

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Again with this. Wikipedia can't be neutral. Nothing can be. Neutral doesn't exist.

There is absolutely no way to be "politically unbiased" when talking about things. Being "neutral" just means being in favor of the status quo, which is not neutral at all. There is no third position, you either oppose or support the way things work right now. Bias is completely inescapable.

If you want to get an "unbiased" view of something, the only real thing you can do is to read many sources biased against both outlooks and compare and contrast. What you end up with will still be biased though, just by virtue of what you select to care about and not.

People who claim to be neutral and unbiased only say it because they think it makes them look more credible, or they have deluded themselves to be able to think they're somehow more rational than everyone else. There is no way to not be biased as a human being.

[–] 790@lemmy.sdf.org -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Alignment with the facts? Depends. https://quillette.com/2022/07/18/cognitive-distortions/

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What I'm getting from that is:

(1) Wikipedias editors don't want to use racists as sources for articles.

(2) The author thinks refusing to give equal time to fringe arguments that link genetics and intelligence is a surrender to "woke ideology" that will kill Wikipedia in the long run.

Yawn.

[–] 790@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"fringe arguments that link genetics and intelligence" -- genes influence intelligence, that's the state of science.

I've always wondered how people who think the link between genes and intelligence is false explain the evolution of intelligence. I'm honestly shocked that people here in "Technology" give your comment so many upvotes. Shouldn't we be more sciency here? Also, AI is a good example that intelligence is not independent of the material world.

Your point (1) probably gets applause because of camp thinking. Don't let your beliefs become your identity. http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxqTOm3TzsY

However, I understand that the topic is extremely uncomfortable and personally even think it should be avoided because society is not ready for it. There is still too much racism and hatred existing in society for this knowledge not to be abused. The same social immaturity also explains why currently many suspect this research to be motivated by racism.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=NxqTOm3TzsY

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] waterbogan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Well that was interesting. Useful to know I cant rely on Wikipedia any more for anything on human intelligence.

With anything controversial like this its best to go direct to the source if possible - the research itself