• user134450@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    9 months ago

    What makes them think that the library of Alexandria did it any other way? Nerds have existed long before the internet…

      • rockerface 🇺🇦@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        You can only call then Nerds if they’re from the Nerdeaux region of France. Otherwise they’re just sparkling smartasses

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        umm ackshually this is false, the concept of nerd originates from a viking ship that docked at Lübeck in 873, whereupon the crew got into an extended argument about the precise value of their cargo, leading to the Lübeck merchants exclaiming “Fücking Nörds!” and that quickly caught on and eventually the term started generally referring to anyone that was annoyingly pedantic but technically correct.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 months ago

    All human advancement was created by nerds. Spears were invented by weaklings too slow to kill with their bare hands. Fire was tamed by the people who were scared of the dark

    • meliaesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think fire was tamed because the food poisoning killed those without it. We are supposed to just sleep at night.

    • neptune@dmv.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think the post makes a point important in modern capitalism: people will create “value” for free because they can, they care, they want to, it’s a challenge. Capital and/or the threat of starvation is not actually always necessary for people to be “productive”. Ego, boredom, altruism, adventure, these are also traits of humanity besides survival and greed.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    “The best way to get a correct answer online is not to post a question. It is to post the wrong answer.”

  • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Just ignore the 150M a year they spend managing finances, contributors, tech, moderation, etc. Takes a lot to maintain an accurate library.

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      i dont think anyone is ignoring that. the meme is talking about how it was built, not how it’s currently maintained. it definitely didn’t start off spending that much. all that spending is a consequence of it’s popularity, not the reason for it.

      • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Some would say that most of the spending is based on greed. Individual salaries doubled to tripled in the last decade, with their head earning three quarters of a million now.

        It was a tenth 15 years ago.

        They started out right, like they all do. Then personal money catches up.

          • dariusj18@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I think you should consider the opportunity cost of what they would be making elsewhere. Salaries need to be competitive, otherwise you are at the mercy of those who are willing to work for less and hope that the reason is benevolent.

            • underisk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              That would make more sense if Wikipedia was a profit generating enterprise that needed to satisfy shareholders. It’s run like a charity through donations, though.

              Fifteen other people sit on the board of trustees that oversees wikimedia. The only person on that board who gets paid is Jimmy.

        • mriormro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          You thinking a $750,000 salary for the CEO of one of the top ten visited websites in the world and arguably one of the most important knowledge resources we’ve probably ever created is ‘greed’ is pretty hilarious.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Thinking one guy deserves that much salary for the work of millions of volunteers over decades is what’s hilarious. Do you think those giant pleas that they post when they need money would be as convincing if they listed his salary?

            • dr_lobotomy@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              What does that have to do with Wikipedia specifically?This isn’t a problem of wikipedia it’s a problem of capitalism

        • Irelephant@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 days ago

          Aside from nagging a bit more often for donations, has the site gotten worse in any way as a result?

    • gwildors_gill_slits@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      150m a year doesn’t seem that much, honestly. I know people think “oh, it’s just a website” but it takes a lot of work and money in salaries and infrastructure hosting to keep a web application as popular as Wikipedia up and running.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    That’s literally what the library of Alexandria was all about.

    They told all of the nerds that the best nerd paper would get into their nerd building, and nerds traveled there from around the world and dedicated their lives to correcting and one-upping the other nerds.

    I love the fallibility of humans and our consistency, it makes me much more comfortable to live in a world that seems comprehensible, because I know underneath all of it are like three dumb existential complacencies that any human part of the species can’t deny.

    • Scrof@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s as accurate as any university textbook and way more accurate than any school textbook.

    • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s definitely not 100% foolproof to misinformation, but I’ve always found wikipedia to be reliable. Why do you feel it isnt?

      • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Wikipedia’s reliability in it’s own words - check out the holocaust misinformation from last year!

        US congressional staff editing controversies as documented by and presented in wikipedia

        A ten year long hoax running until two years ago

        Wikipedia’s own list of its controversies - pay special attention here to the 2023 exposure of an administrator pretending to be a spanish folk singer as a sockpuppet of another administrator who was banned in 2015 for making “promotional edits”.

        I want to be clear: i do not feel that wikipedia isn’t reliable. I can clearly observe that wikipedia is unreliable.

        • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Info on Wikipedia shouldn’t be taken at face value, check the sources given! A lot of the examples you gave likely didn’t have any citation. The blame for misinformation partly lies with the people accepting information with no sources given. Also, any example of known misinformation just means that it has been caught and corrected. Everyone should know wikipedia is not right 100% of the time but it is always getting better. There millions of articles and I don’t think the examples you listed should lead anyone to believe it is overall unreliable. It is good however to not blindly put your trust in whatever you read from it, and if you do come across something that isn’t correct, you have the opportunity to fix it.

          • survivalmachine@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            So would you now agree with the original comment that said Wikipedia is not a reliable SOURCE of accurate information? It’s a great starting point and a potential resource that can be used as a bibliography of possible sources, but it’s never a good source itself. Even as a bibliography, you have to consider whether the available references for an article are biased – they don’t always paint a fair picture.

            • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yes I agree with that. I think there was an issue with establishing what “source” meant in the given context. I wouldn’t say the text of a single wikipedia article is a reliable source by itself, however that doesn’t discredit the reliability of accurate information on Wikipedia in my opinion. If you stripped a textbook of it’s listed citations and credited authors, then you can’t really verify the information in it either.

          • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            That’s wild.

            If you knew a person who shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe them? Would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?

            • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Wikipedia isn’t a person though. It’s a website of articles that summarizes topics and ideally lists sources that contain the info within it. I agree a person that sounds like that is untrustworthy, but that doesn’t mean anything on the topic of wikipedia.

              • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                Woah.

                So, like, if you knew of a website which shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe it? would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?

                • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It depends on the website. A Twitter post with no source? Untrustworthy. Wikipedia page with plenty of sources to back up the article? I would default to saying trustworthy, but of course I would still have to check the sources myself. Wikipedia is a tool. It connects you to outside sources of info. It has the reputation of being reliable enough to get trustworthy info in its summaries. As I’ve already stated before, mistakes have been made though.

  • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    That’s what it should’ve been. In reality anything even remotely political on it is heavily biased towards imperial core and NATO countries, and against their geopolitical rivals.

    This happens partly because most of these “nerds” are also westerners and rate their own outlets as more reliable, thus enforcing western propaganda.

    • lemmyingly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      You bring up an interesting point. There are opposing opinions on everything if you go deep enough into the topic, even in STEM fields too.

      It’d be interesting to see a Wikipedia that provides pages on the same topic that present each opinion. So the base/overview page on the topic states the summaries of each opinion with a link for further reading. Each opinion page states there are many opinions on the topic and it just presents one. Each page then suggests for further reading, view the base/overview page where the user can read about other opinions on the topic.