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?
So lets Start our own #Wikipedia? #LibrePedia? yes in German its #Schwarzseher means if someone is pessimistic sees everything negative (basically the opposite of optimist)
Imho #Wikipedia is now used as propaganda tool and they as #LibrePedia need to solve the “who to trust” issue (establish network of trustworthy contributors)
@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.
@Valmond @FreedomAdvocate
So lets Start our own #Wikipedia? #LibrePedia? yes in German its #Schwarzseher means if someone is pessimistic sees everything negative (basically the opposite of optimist)
Imho #Wikipedia is now used as propaganda tool and they as #LibrePedia need to solve the “who to trust” issue (establish network of trustworthy contributors)
@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.