It was awful having to use AOL dialup in the UK. My parents used it (it was one of the few ISPs with freephone) so I was stuck with it. The problem was AOL routed all traffic through Virginia. For someone in the UK that meant a minimum of ~130ms ping, ruining online games and making everything super slow
For games I would have done awful things for a ping that low on dial-up. More typical for me was over 200ms. I did everything I could to tweak MTU and modem settings but could never break the 200ms barrier (that I remember).
Lots of people in models X & S are surprised to find their seemingly ok tires are NOT OK because they wear very quickly on the non-visible inside edge.
there are brakes on the car, which have pads and fluid. There is coolant for the battery.
Honestly, there should be a maintenance screen in the UI. You should be able to replace tires, or windshield wipers or fluid and the UI should keep track of it. Even if it just says "last replaced 10/11/12 @ 23,456 miles" or "inspected 11/12/13" or something.
If Apple made a car, I would expect "Preferences -> Logbook -> ["Show logs", "Add Service Record...", "Save in PDF"]" menu, never heard Tesla have one in Settings menu.
> To see the miles driven since your last tire rotation or replacement, touch Controls > Service and look under Last Tire Service. After the tires on Model 3 are rotated, replaced, or swapped, update your vehicle's tire configuration by touching Reset, or by touching Wheel & Tire > Tires from the same screen. This allows your vehicle to reset the learned tire settings and improve your driving experience. This also clears and resets the tread wear alert for the vehicle until you travel 6,250 miles (10,000 km) and low tread depth is detected again.
had to look it up because I wasn't sure where it was but knew I had seen it.
Translation: Teslas, not sure which model you looked up, have such bad suspension and stearing that tires, ubder regular use, worn down inconsistently. Which shouldn't be an issue in modern cars running proper tires and tire pressure.
> Translation: Teslas, not sure which model you looked up, have such bad suspension and stearing that tires, ubder regular use, worn down inconsistently. Which shouldn't be an issue in modern cars running proper tires and tire pressure.
Ah yes, "Big Tesla" must have gotten to...checks notes...Michelin tires[0], Ford[1], Toyota[2] and more...
Your ignorance to cars and blind hatred to Tesla is showing BTW.
Inconsistent tire wear has nothing to do with the tires and all with the car so. Oh, and wrong tires (as in tires not meeting speed, load or dimension requirements), tires wrongly mounted on the rims (common among "tuners") or wrong tire preasure.
How much do you know about cars or mechanical engineering?
E.g. in Teslas user manual for the Model 3: swap tire every 10,000 km. And in other comments the last times the same question was discussed. Indirectly in the high number of inspection failures due to suspension issues.
I'm running a Model 3 with 2023.44.39 on it. In the Service menu there are a variety of exactly the things you mentioned.
In the top right corner there is "Tire Service Mileage" with an estimate of when you should service your tires. There is a reset link under that, which links into the "Wheel and Tire" service tab with more maintenance options.
Regarding the tire wear, the car is heavy with instant torque. I've had to replace my tires quite a few times, but it's the only thing that has needed much servicing for me in the past three years. I'd expect that from a new car though, and I don't have much confidence in it's longevity.
It should be possible to equip the car with enough sensors to detect or predict maintenance needs. Tesla's approach is, however, still incomplete. The powertrain is sensored enough, suspension/brakes/tires aren't.
My direct experience with power train sensors has been a loud noise and lots of red triangle messages that something has failed (drive motor).
Another time my direct experience with inside edge wear has been... a pop and a hiss. Then the tire pressure readout gave a red triangle to say the tire had low pressure and the number was dropping to zero. (google "tesla inside edge tire wear")
My direct experience with many flat tires has been -- tesla roadside assistance will waste the rest of your day or night. I've considered buying that aftermarket spare.
And the battery fuse went once - I got a huge red message:
"BMS_u031 Battery Fuse Requires Replacement Soon - OK to drive, schedule service"?
Turns out telsa doesn't actually KNOW if the fuse needs to be replaced - you have to bring it in (google BMS_U031) It is several hundred dollars to replace.
If your car has a 12v battery, it will eventually die. The battery is fairly expensive.
actually, most maintenance stuff is hidden away. Wish I could unhide it, even if tesla only did it when out of warranty.
Pads and rotors - yes. Fluid - probably not. Usually changing fluid every 2 years is a good idea. Both to keep brakes performance and prevent rusting due to water slowly making it’s way into the system.
Brake fluid is not flushed due to heat cycling, that is what bleed maintenance is for. Flushing every 2 years is because brake fluid is hygroscopic (absorbs water), and even brake systems are not perfectly sealed. Water in the fluid reduces its effectiveness and can cause rusting in the brake lines, leading to failure.
EVERY vehicle should have brake fluid flushed every 2 years. That Tesla recommends 4 years is straight out incompetent.
Those seem like very reasonable recommendations. Thanks for sharing that. I have never read a Tesla owner’s manual, so I was replying to what was shared previously.
On a system as critical as the brakes, I highly doubt they yolo just guessed and said, eh, just make it 4 years, that sounds good. I find it far more believable they did extensive testing of the brake system, which they build, and thus know just how much water is and isn't getting into the system, and what a good fluid replacement interval is.
Or maybe everyone that works there is an incompetent monkey and they never test anything, ever. It's probably that, definitely. That's also why we see so many stories in the news about 5 year old Tesla's brakes failing. Given that we all know how long full self driving has been promised, I'm sure we'll get those news stories any day now.
Like anything in safety critical engineering there are margins of safety. Seal failures in the top end of the brake system can cause water ingress without immediate impact on the braking system but will eventually cause hard lines to rust through, causing sudden and catastrophic failure of the braking system.
The hydraulic portion of the braking system in a Tesla is not significantly different than any other passenger car, so yes, it’s utterly incompetent to recommend twice the maintenance interval.
Maybe Tesla is just hyper-focused on Silicon Valley? I could see brakes fluid lasting that long in such a nice climate. In Northern Europe where lower part of the car is in salty water bath for 6 months a year… Checking brake fluid LEVEL every 4 years feels like looking for a trouble.
That's a useless data point without knowing how much you drive. a taxicab or police vehicle racks up hundreds of thousands of miles per year, and thus needs fluids far more often than every two years.
If not, that is really, really dumb, and there is no way to justify not doing that. Especially for car that probably has more sensors, electronics and software than most cars (that also provide such info).
They do, the parent is either on an older tesla software platform or they haven't looked at settings > service and have ignored the alerts when they occur.
otoh it has a dashboard and a rim around the display to lean your hand on while you're trying to hit some ridiculously small (in a moving car) touchscreen target.
The regular inspection for ICE vehicles is centered around oil changes, air filter change (engine, not cabin), valve checks and distribution chain/belt changes. Everything else, from brake pads (wear sensors entered the chat), tires (life varies a lot, from 10k km to over 40k km for cars), windshield wipers (no determined lifetime, change it when it breaks) to brake fluid (recommended to change every 3 years) are done opportunistically with some oil changes.
Without an ICE, the only regular maintenance you need is brake fluid. Everything else depends loosely on kilometers and style of driving and quality of materials (wipers).
How much does this vary by jurisdiction? I remember the UK has the "MOT test" which I think does rather more than that, but that's just the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test
The official inspection is different by jurisdiction, the maintenance plan depends on the manufacturer. The inspection and maintenance are different, for example in regular maintenance schedule there is no emissions check, while the inspection does it. The other way around, maintenance includes checks on all fluid level (coolant, brake, washer) while the inspection does not.
Yes, this is the case in most European jurisdictions. UK mandates inspections once per year (starting 3 years after manufacture). There also appears to be a 2014 EU directive (2014/45) that mandates periodic inspections of most cars across EU states at least every 2 years (starting at most 4 years after manufacture).
Sure, but why wouldn't Tesla write some software for those items like other car brands do? Let the driver know it's time to replace the brake fluid, tell the driver the estimated wear (+ sensor warning) on the brake pads?
Assuming this, no scheduled services, is Tesla policy, it is very well possible that Tesla doesn't have task lists in place for said checks. Which would be bad...
Tesla has some recommendations in user manual. I almost bought model y. So I saw, that there is recommendation to check brakes after winter and salty roads or something alike. I also guess, that any other repair shop could do generic check as well. Teslas have brakes, suspensions, brake fluids and many other “normal” parts.
Sure, Tesla has some things in the user manual. A workshop so needs specific task lists in the workshop manual, otherwise the inspection varies by day and person doing it. Because without said workshop manuals, mechanics are left out in the cold with regards to what has to be done. Propably includes a liability risk, you follow approved check lists from the OEM and you are propably save if something happens. You don't, miss something, an accident happens and the liability question is a lot less clear.
There is no specific task list in the workshop manual. I had cars and motorcycles of various brands and, except for Mazda, nobody has a good list, while Mazda pretends to have one. Even in good car shops, brand or no brand, including the one owned by my family, there is no official list for a "good check", they just ask you: "what do you want checked?". Why? Because if you ask them to check everything, like Mazda says it does, it will cost a lot for little benefits. And car shops will be happy to charge labor for "checks".
The best checks I get is when I ask my cousin (owner of a car shop, certified to do inspections): "take my car for a couple of days as your daily driver, if you notice anything wrong then fix it". Otherwise the official testing includes: suspension and direction (includes indirectly wheel bearing), brakes, emissions, headlight alignment, rust or corrosion signs, tire integrity and wear vs indicator, brake fluid level, antifreeze level, washer fluid level, signs of fluid leakage in the engine compartment or at wheels. That's it.
I read the instruction manuals from all my cars and motorcycles. They are a minimum, in my opinion, I check myself a lot more, regularly.
Funny, the workshop manual, true it is a single one from the 80s, has quite detailed interval tasks listed. And the detailed instructions later, identified by task code. On top of that, it includes all / most steps regarding diagnostics. And, obviously, detailed instructions regarding repair and replacement of bits and pieces. I never bothered checking those manuals for modern cars so, first I don't do that work and second there is only so much one can do anyway.
The right to repair move started because lately it is difficult to impossible to perform some repairs by yourself and there is a lack of documentation accessible to owners. Yes, in the '80 you got specifications, manuals and guides for most cars, almost none today.
Doesn't it show you when to do some maintenance based on sensors? BMW has a display that has miles on it, but those miles are only rough estimates. It may say 50k miles after replacing brake pads, but 40k miles later that could have changed to zero or it could only reach zero after 60k miles. The indication for service is based on a sensor at the brake pad, not a service interval in miles.
Every quarter? Even when driving a 15 year old combustion car I have never had a car that needed to go for service that often! My new EV has a two-year service interval to check the coolant and brakes.
I generally do my oil every 7500 miles using full synthetic.
When I take it in for service I assume they don’t use the expensive stuff and chnage it at 5k miles.
Either way, that’s 2x a year for me. I’m probably below average driving at just shy of 15k miles/year. I think the average is around 15k though. That would be 2-3 oil changes if you did them at similar intervals.
Some companies (ie: BMW) mandate more frequent chnages and higher octane gas etc etc. I don’t use those cars. If I can’t service them myself I won’t buy it (Tesla included)
Sure, you can optimize for different things. You could argue that the best way to travel alone is by private jet. You get there quickly and in luxury, with a birds-eye view, and have food and drinks served the whole way by your chef. It's all subjective.
As an avid player I can confirm that all commands would execute. So if you were next to a vendor, you'd see the buy menu, but also if a criminal was nearby they'd have the guards summoned on them at the same time.
Getting home is a big issue for a lot of families. School ends around 3 pm, but most kids do some sort of after school activity like a sport to bridge the gap until after 5 pm when a parent can come through the pickup line. Growing up, there was also just general “after-school” programs. Basically just day care for after the school day that would cost extra.
most schools are located near public transportation and even if there are no bus stops near the home it is generally easy enough for kids to get to their parent's office/rec center/ friend's house etc. basically you have a lot more options when everyone is no longer rushing to be at work or school
This is so common in consumer tech. Is there a name for it? Like how any new TV has horrible motion interpolation and sharpening enabled by default, or the bassiness of Bose/Beats headphones.
It takes time and experience to develop, and the masses on average don't have it. As in, they might have developed taste for a few products, but not most products. Hence, the mass-market products are aimed at people with no taste, because that captures the largest slice of the consumers.
Random examples:
- In A/B tests, the typical personal will rate louder music as better. Hence, all bars and pubs turn their music up to 11, to the point that it's horrendously distorted, causes physical pain, and forces everyone to scream at the top of their lungs to be heard.
- Sugary, salty and fatty foods are consistently rated by typical people as more tasty than foods without them. Hence, all fast-food restaurants load their foods up with those elements instead of more expensive flavourings such as herbs and spices.
- Just look at the typical gaming PC market. RGB LEDs are now almost "essential", despite adding nothing material to the performance or capability of the system other than a garish blinken-light-show. You can't see the gigahertz, but you sure can see the LEDs!
- Cars are perceived to be more sporty if they have a loud exhaust with a deep note to it. So of course, every "sports" car has literal fake exhaust that's "tuned" to make this particular noise.
Or they just have different tastes then you do, which is a far cry from having 'no taste'. People consistently prefer and rate headphones with more bass as more appealing, for example. That's why consumer brands are bass-heavy. It matches the taste of the market. If you need a flat audio profile where the mids and highs and bass are all at the same level you have to pick up a pair of studio monitors.
There is nothing wrong when it comes to subjective taste. However I think there is some level of objectivity to many things that can be applied to an extent. For example, if there is so much bass that much of the other frequencies are not audible, then I think it is an objectively bad setup. Or if your food is prepared with so much sugar/salt/fat/seasonings that you can't even taste the main ingredient, then it's objectively not very good (or at the very least, a waste of the main ingredient).
> Sugary, salty and fatty foods are consistently rated by typical people as more tasty than foods without them
Sweet, salty and/or fatty tastes form a pretty solid basis for many delicious snacks/hors d'oeuvres/desserts - highbrow or lowbrow - though I personally like tangy as well as textures like crunchy, creamy, chewy, spongy; and sometimes other tastes like bitter, savory, or piquant as well. These are tastes that humans (and other creatures) have developed and retained over thousands of years.
Omitting sweet/salty/creamy greatly reduces the scope of cuisine.
> Sugary, salty and fatty foods are consistently rated by typical people as more tasty than foods without them. Hence, all fast-food restaurants load their foods up with those elements instead of more expensive flavourings such as herbs and spices.
I love this one. Want to convince someone with an unsophisticated palette that you are the greatest chef in history? Just start loading everything you make with butter and sugar. Salty and sweet === good to most people.
It's even worse with Harley-Davidson motorcycles. They're not just going for low and loud, they have a specific profile that they tune their engines for. It will be interesting to see what they do if they ever make an electric.
iPhones are definitely aimed at the more discerning, up-market customer. Android meanwhile is for the mass-market.
iPhones have four levels of encryption designed to thwart the likes of the FBI trying to get data out of your confiscated phones. Androids have a checkbox tick that basically says "Encryption: Yes".
iPhones have 1000-nit OLED HDR screens that are colour-managed and calibrated out of the box, and have Dolby Vision HDR system-wide.
Etc, etc...
iPhones are for people that actually care about their privacy, aren't blind, and appreciate the "small touches". Androids are for people that don't mind factory-installed crapware, as long as it's cheap.
You aren't really comparing apples to apples here. Android is an open source operating system used by dozens of different hardware vendors. Crapware is only installed by some vendors. And iphone rarely has the best displays. They usually trade places with a few other Android vendors for best camera. As for security, iphone usually is the best. But it varies with different Android vendors in how well or how poorly they implement security.
The iPhone 13 literally has the best display currently available, and more importantly, it's colour managed correctly. It is manufactured by Samsung, and they use the same panel in their own flagship phone, but they don't colour-manage as well or as consistently, making the iPhone the overall winner in my book. Other Android manufacturers have markedly worse displays in every metric.
The fact that you don't appreciate this just reinforces my point: you don't happen to have "taste" in phone screens. That's okay! I have bad taste in cars, wine, sport, and a bunch of other stuff.
Actually, it just doesn't. Firstly Apple doesn't just use Samsung, they also use BOE and LG panels, so they'd have to be calibrated to the lesser of either.
Unless there is massive unit variance, which is even worse.
wtf is dolby-vision HDR? Sounds like cheap marketing crap like “Extra Bass Boost”
I rock an iphone because the SE is cheap and the camera is good, if I cared about privacy I wouldn’t have a phone with always on microphones and cameras…
NSO group’s Pegasus was cross-platform, so as far as I’m concerned the security point is moot, people buy iphones and androids for various reasons, and it’s easier to judge someone’s “upmarketness” by the stickerprice of their flagship, not the OS it runs…
HDR10 is the crap Samsung invented, which just extends 8-bit colour to 10-bit colour (from 256 shades of intensity to 1024). This is not enough to display smooth gradients when going from the blackest blacks to the brightest whites that a high-dynamic range (HDR) screen is capable of. Hence, it causes visible banding, especially in "blue skies" or similar smooth areas of slowly changing colour.
Samsung worked around this by applying a post-processing filter that smooths out the banding... sometimes. It also almost always smooths away fine detail, ruining the 4K details. (Similarly, their 8K screens appear less detailed than some 4K screens for other but equally silly reasons.)
Dolby Vision uses a more optimal allocation of signal "bits" to the spectrum of colours and intensities visible to the human eye. The ideal is that each colour and each shade would be perfectly evenly distributed, so that "512" would be exactly half as perceptually bright as "1024", etc... The Dolby Vision encoding does this very nearly perfectly, eliminating visible banding without having to hide them by smudging the decoded picture. This optimal colour-volume encoding also means that transforms like scaling or brightness changes don't introduce colour-shifts or relative brightness shifts.
If you've never seen a DV video taken with an iPhone Pro 13 displayed on its OLED, you just don't know what you're missing. Go to an Apple store and play with one for a few minutes.
But seriously, companies like Samsung like to shave 50 cents off their flagship products by not paying DV their licensing fees. They figure that cutting corners like this doesn't matter, because most customers have no taste in image quality anyway, and just want BRIGHTER! COLORS! and nothing else.
They're right.
You don't care, and you're happy to save 50c on a $10K television or a $1K mobile phone.
I hate motion interpolation with a burning passion and have made it into practically a vendetta and will turn it off anywhere I see it by any means necessary, including downloading a remote application onto my phone and using the IR blaster to turn it off in restaurants and waking up in the middle of the night at friends houses to sneakily switch it off.
For whoever what motion interpolation is also known as is the soap opera effect on movies and I agree, it looks terrible but most people don’t get it, it doesn’t bother them at all.
For me personally, 24fps is extremely close to being unable to perceive motion, and in many movies I absolutely can't see the content.
Any pan in a movie is something where my mind absolutely is unable to process the motion and I become unable to see anything at all. With motion interpolation on, I can actually tell what's happening in an action scene.
According to some neuroscience article that was posted in HN recently, some people might percieve reality in "less FPS." Not only that, but as people age, the speed also goes down. Most people I know cannot discern the difference between heavy motion interpolation and it being off. In the same way, I remember when people weren't able to discern between DVD and BluRay quality in 1080p displays. Even today, many people can't see the difference between a Retina display and a 1080p monitor, which blows my mind.
I’ve never owned Bose nor Beats specifically but more generally I find bassiness is a desirable feature rather than a gimmick for dumb consumers.
With room sized speakers it’s not a problem because you’ll have multiple cones dedicated to the low end and usually some subs too. Thus it’s easy to have a rich low end without sacrificing the fidelity of the higher end. But with headphones that’s much harder to pull off. So you either have a flatter sound or a muffled high end. Thus having headphones that can have a super crisp top end while still still producing a rich and deep low end is very much desirable.
> I find bassiness is a desirable feature rather than a gimmick for dumb consumers
It's perfectly reasonable to find bass a desirable quality. Depending on my mood I'll listen to music with lots of bass, or with little bass. However, I've zero desire to intentionally alter the frequency response so I'm hearing something different than the musicians and mixing engineer intended. Instead I'll just listen to appropriate music for my mood/taste.
Intentionally having a non-flat frequency response is equivalent to adjusting the colour space / colour grading of your monitor to not accurately represent colours. You can do it, and there are reasons why you might want to do it temporarily e.g. blue light filtering in the evening. However, doing so permanently without a specific (medical?) reason is a bit unusual.
> However, I've zero desire to intentionally alter the frequency response so I'm hearing something different than the musicians and mixing engineer intended.
I’ve done a lot of research on this as a recording artist myself and what you’re saying here is a misunderstood meme.
Eg Half the records released before 80s have been remastered to sound different to what the musicians originally recorded.
Plus any medium adds colour, vinyl adds warmth to the playback, digital formats (unless you’re using lossless, which most people don’t) add artifecting, etc. Songs are often written for their preferred medium.
So there isn’t really an exact “as intended” but rather a broader “Goldilocks zone” (for want a better term). This is especially true if you listen to a broad variety of genres.
You’ll also find that most songs record in the last 20 years will be compressed to hell and back so they sound good regardless of how shitty the sound systems are in peoples homes and cars. This isn’t an artistic decision, it’s what producers and sound engineers do to make records sound good for the lowest common denominator. It’s also part of the reason why live music sound better (if the gig or club has a half decent sound engineer anyway).
> Intentionally having a non-flat frequency response is equivalent to adjusting the colour space / colour grading of your monitor to not accurately represent colours.
Some content is actually deficient in some spectrums due to the limitations of the media or technologies of the era. Those limitations were intended to be compensated by speakers that added that colour. There’s a reason why studio monitors with zero frequency curve are less common to for rock
fans than acoustic speakers (for example).
Lastly it’s also worth noting that not everyone’s ears hear spectrums equally. Our ears don’t have a zero frequency curve and that curve will differ from person to person. Which is why some of the best headphones out there are ones that profile your hearing and then perform post processing on the music based on your hearing profile.
Already discussed that point: those have been remastered for CD and thus sound different to the original recorded versions.
If you’re a purist like the GP then you wouldn’t listen to the CD versions. Of course, in practice most people are not that much of a purist. Which is why the whole meme of “as the artists intended” is largely hypocritical posturing.
If I hadn't been gifted a pair of beats earbuds, I could see myself believing similarly. The ones I was given were very nicely built, with tactile components that felt of significant quality, as though they were assembled with great care. They were also the muddiest, mushiest, and most unpleasant listening experience I've had in the last couple of decades outside of bad laptop / phone speakers or scenarios that used explicitly damaged components. When I first got them I thought that I had received a bad pair, only to find online that the sound profile was intentional.
Obviously shit earphones are going to sound shit. That’s true whether they’re bass heavy or not. So its a sentiment that is not contradictory to my point.
My point is having earphones and headphones that can offer a deep and rich low end without sacrificing sharpness a not novelty feature. And there are earphones and headphones out there that can do that. I know this because I’ve owned plenty over the years. :)
For a camera it would just be referred to as post processing. You can even see some of this going on when you open the photo immediately after taking it and see it snap in to high quality later. Or the difference between the live viewfinder and the final image.
Not OP and don't have an example to hand, but something I noticed is that with subjects where I understand them well I do tend to notice a bit of a bias, but equally edits are usually accepted too.
The problem in my mind is that on subjects where I'm not as well educated I may well not notice the bias because I don't know what may or may not be disputed for a given subject matter.
Obviously everything on Wikipedia should be sourced but it's entirely possible to be selective of which sources you use.
Welcome to the entire gamut of human endeavour. We don’t live long enough or have brains enough to know everything at once so we delegate information gathering to others.
I don't know anything about the guy but the first few sentences normally summarize the article and that article has an entire section "Views on Jews" and "Third Reich" so putting the antisemite in the first paragraph at least is not that far fetched. From a neutral, never before heard of this guy, point of view.
Yeah, that dude is deeeefinitely deserving of having antisemitism mentioned in the first sentence.
My problem with Wikipedia is that some articles are fiercely gatekept by individuals who have clear bias and the community does little about it. A great example of this would be the Alcoholics Anonymous page.
Any time someone tries to add information about the ineffectiveness of AA's all-or-nothing treatment of substance abuse, the abuse/harassment that goes on in groups, the documentary that revealed said abuse and harassment - one of a small handful of accounts, who rarely participate on any other page, immediately revert the edit with a gish-gallop of claimed wikipedia violations.
Now, aside from the fact that reverting edits is supposed to be something of last resort - the reasons they cite for removing stuff strain credulity all the time. For example, they dismiss the documentary because it apparently wasn't screened in enough festivals and theatres. Which...might be a thing (it really isn't), if one were trying to cite it as a source...but you can't even mention the existence of the documentary, a demonstrable fact, without that being shot down as well due to the documentary not meeting their standards for a documentary.
I believe they also cited a wikipedia rule that says that "both sides" type coverage of a subject needs to be proportionate to how mainstream/fringe each "side" is. So by their reasoning: because there aren't many people talking about the problems with AA, the AA article shouldn't have any mention of the problems with AA.
They justify all this by claiming the AA is under "attack" and they are "defending" AA from the evil people (did I mention that AA is closely tied to Christianity?)
Wikipedia is controlled by a very small number of people who use an exhaustive policy manual to justify whatever actions they want to take, defend viewpoints they like and attack those they don't. It's sort of like how US federal and state laws are extensive that just walking to your mailbox, you probably break some sort of law and could be detained by police for it.
That's the core problem. Wikipedia isn't governed by the truth or fact, but by who knows the policy manual best.
"BRD" is not at all a recommended approach to editing, it really is more of a last resort. You're very much expected to propose non-trivial improvements to the article on the talk page before you make them, and then respond to any actionable feedback; at which point anyone who reverts you after the fact is acting against established consensus. Being "BOLD" is okay for simple copyedits but not for much else nowadays.
> Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting
It's bizarre that you think it "puts reverting at the center of the recommended approach to editing" when the policy specifically says it doesn't even encourage reverting.
It's an "explanatory supplement" to the Consensus policy. The problem with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is that arguably there are so many of them that you can almost always find one that says what you want it to say. :)
And if not, WP:IAR will do the trick. That, too, is policy:
If we're being fair, the deletion log mentions the exact reason: it wasn't an article that was deleted; it was a (cross-namespace) redirect. The actual article could've been some user's sandbox page or something. If a page is a sandbox (not complete), there shouldn't be redirects to it. When the page is complete enough, then it can be moved to the main namespace.
Yes and no. It’s just that no one has bothered to make the page for one; you’re free to do so. Your accusation of deletion implies that there was a page that was deleted. That would be a bias, but it wasn’t the case. The page was a redirect that violated the rules.
In other words, there’s a bias in the editors to not make it, but there’s no malicious bias that deleting an actual article would imply.
Ah. That is interesting. The reason for the deletion of the draft is supposedly inactivity. I can't see the contents of the page before deletion, so I can't comment on how complete the draft was, but it's definitely a page that should exist.
Seriously? How can you have a 'neutral take' on Julius Evola? Do you want Wikipedia to make a neutral take on the literary merit of the Turner Diaries?
Some things cannot be expressed or explained without political language or terminology because they are inherently political. For what it's worth I think Wikipedia did a great job with that article.
After having read the article, I concur that it does not warrant such a prominent place. There's a paragraph dedicated to his views on Jews, and they're not particularly antisemitic, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a feature of the core of his thinking, merely a (convenient?) derivative of it. Mentioning his rejection of values he associated with Jews in the second paragraph would have been more consistent. There's more in that introduction that shouldn't be there, e.g. the phrase about admiring Himmler.
> There's a paragraph dedicated to his views on Jews, and they're not particularly antisemitic
Are we reading the same article? It says 'Evola viewed Jews as corrosive' and that he believed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were broadly accurate even if they were fake.
I doubt that scanning a Wikipedia article is sufficient qualification to announce that someone has been confirmed an antisemite or not, but I'm sure victims of antisemitism are grateful for your judgement.
Maybe a more apt comparison is between Louis Farrakhan and David Duke? Both are featured as "Prominent Figures" section of the Antisemitism sidebar but only one has "antisemitic" in the lead.
Yes. The old lets the reader to decide for him/herself whether he was antisemitic or not. Does not obstruct information about his views yet does not devolve into name calling in the first sentence.
I'm not trying to underplay what he is saying, but dismissing him in the first sentence on a supposedly neutral article really rubs me the wrong way.
There is no question that he was an antisemite if you read the
sources provided on the very same page. He was objectively an antisemite there is no room for interpretation or your definition of the word differs from the one of the general public.
Would you have an issue if we put "suspected paedophile and open paedophile apologist" in the opening lines for philosophers like Foucault, Sarte and gore vidal? Those are also objective facts.
I would rather have dinner with a antisemite than a paedophile.
> Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola (19 May 1898 – 11 June 1974), better known as Julius Evola, was an Italian philosopher, poet, and painter whose esoteric worldview featured antisemitic conspiracy theories and the occult. He has been described as a "fascist intellectual", a "radical traditionalist", "antiegalitarian, antiliberal, antidemocratic, and antipopular", and as "the leading philosopher of Europe's neofascist movement".
It does not appear to portray antisemitic beliefs as "the single most important or relevant fact about him". It presents them as an important fact, just as Washington's intro includes slaveholding before moving on to the table of contents.
I didn't mean to claim that the examples are comparable, just provide an example to highlight that there degrees to which you can highlight such views.
Realistically, only a small proportion read entire Wikipedia articles of such length. Most users would scan the introduction of the old version and come away with the belief he was some sort of noble hero, rather than a crackpot.
If many reputable people say he's an antisemite, which is the case here, it belongs in the intro. The first sentence may be a bit too much in this case.
Those two versions seem like two extremes. I would say his antisemitism belongs in the intro (the bit before the first paragraph header), but not in the first sentence. The style of the older version of the intro is definitely better and more neutral. Then again, I only read the intro and scanned the rest of the article.
Playbook slippery slope, first minor remarks here and there, then clearly labelling someone as "the enemy", or perhaps complete erasure from the website if it suits the purpose.
>The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.[1] They were spread primarily in an attempt to damage Joe Biden's reputation during the 2020 presidential campaign.[2] United States intelligence community analysis released in March 2021 found that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens "to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration."
The article begins by immediately labeling the accusations “unevidenced” and “false” and then suggests that it is a foreign intelligence plot, an allegation which is itself a conspiracy theory. The article then continues to debunk the accusations point by point all in the introduction of the article, placing the refutation prominently at the top so that the only impression the reader is left with is that there is nothing to it. Only in the final sentence does it reluctantly concede that:
>The article's veracity was strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, due to the questionable provenance of the laptop and its contents, and the suspicion it may have been part of a disinformation campaign.[8][9][10] It was later confirmed that at least some of the laptop materials were genuine and Hunter Biden himself said that the laptop could be his.[11]
Wikipedia is a teriary source; its "bias" reflects that of the secondary sources on which it based. The article you refer to has 93 references to major news organizations and other sources. Are there reputable sources that argue the Biden-Ukraine theory is true and well-founded?
That’s the rub, isn’t it? According to WP:RELIABLE, HuffPost is a reputable media source whereas the New York Post is not. Therefore, if the latter claims to be in possession of Hunter’s emails while the former claims that it’s an FSB forgery, the former must be correct. If only it were so easy to determine reputation.
Neither are stellar examples of high class journalism, but just search the names of both publications plus "lawsuit" or "libel" or similar to observe the categorial difference. The NYPost is undeniably factually wrong more often.
Their smearing of independent anti-war media is consistent. MPN, The Greyzone, and others have been disallowed as sources for very flimsy reasons: [0].
They backed up one editor at the highest levels, after people wised up that he edited Wikipedia an average of 30 times per day, every day, over 14 years; almost entirely making edits against left wing and anti-war causes: [1]
They've also literally destroyed someone's life, lied about it, and then patted themselves on the back for fixing the problem nearly a year too late: [2]
With regard to Irish national politics, I can attest that they leave out serious scandal information regarding the top two parties politicians, while leaving out important good stuff and including all sorts of bs about independent and left wing politicians; from what I've seen they do the same everywhere.
But yes, it's the endemic failure to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" that is so worrying. The Wikimedia Foundation wants to become the "essential infrastructure of the [global] ecosystem of free knowledge".
Even if one were to agree that such a global infrastructure monopoly is a desirable thing to have, one would have to need one's head examined to want an organisation in charge of this infrastructure that regularly resorts to lying by omission to suit its own self-interest.
> essential infrastructure of the [global] ecosystem of free knowledge
I've been a WP editor since a couple of years after it was founded. I don't bother trying to edit anything on the Middle East - those articles are patrolled by zionists, with support from the very top. Articles about those states that are the remnants of Yugoslavia seem to be edited by various kinds of authoritarian bigots.
To get the best out of WP, you have to be clear that many editors have an axe to grind; if something smells fishy, have a look at the talk page, and see if people have been challenging it. And have a look at the edit history.
What's remarkable is that WP is as good as it is. But I'm not happy with the idea of one website becoming the touchstone of human knowledge.
> What's remarkable is that WP is as good as it is. But I'm not happy with the idea of one website becoming the touchstone of human knowledge.
Exactly. It's a remarkable constellation of interests. People are invited to exercise anonymous influence on the most widely propagated information source on the planet, on condition that they work for free. Big Tech profits from the free content thus produced.
I love Wikipedia, but it's a very human project. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, all mixed together.
I started to agreed with the beginning of the article, but then this part:
"""
This article weirdly claims, or implies, a thing that no serious Biblical scholar of any sort would claim, viz., that Jesus was not given the title “Christ” by the original Apostles in the New Testament. The Wikipedia article itself later contradicts that claim, so perhaps the editors of the above paragraph simply meant the two conjoined words “Jesus Christ,” and that Jesus was rarely referred to with those two conjoined words in the New Testament. But this is false, too: the two words are found together in that form throughout the New Testament.
"""
This is wrong. Or rather, wikipedia is completely right in this case. In fact, the line quoted in the article is fully taken from Encyclopedia Britannica. The line is very clear of what it mean, and while it is true that Jesus (son of Joseph) was probably titled "messiah" (or Christ if you want) after meeting with John the Baptist (from the gospels), "Jesus Christ" as a name probably came later. Some bad translations of the gospel or Paul's letter might say otherwise, but don't found your knowledge on translation. And the historiography tends to agree with Wikipedia/me/anybody who had catechism.
Another article ruined. I can't read further after that, if the author is wrong about that, he might also be wrong on things i'm not an expert on, so i won't be able to take anything i read on this seriously. People should just stop talking about history in political articles, they ruin it every time. Or maybe they should everytime, and allow history geeks to classified them easily in the "untrustworthy" category.
>Another article ruined. I can't read further after that, if the author is wrong about that, he might also be wrong on things i'm not an expert on, so i won't be able to take anything i read on this seriously. People should just stop talking about history in political articles, they ruin it every time. Or maybe they should everytime, and allow history geeks to classified them easily in the "untrustworthy" category.
I'm not the guy, i just linked the blog which had examples. My reading of the blog isn't that he's taking a position but rather pointing out how the wiki page is clearly written by someone who does not believe Jesus ever existed. That Christians wouldn't write the article that way.
> The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. [...]
Yeah I'm OK with Wikipedia being biased against misinformation.
>Yeah I'm OK with Wikipedia being biased against misinformation.
Early in the pandemic, a conspiracy theory emerged that the virus had been bio-engineered by China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. One early source of this theory was former Israeli secret service officer Dany Shoham, who gave an interview to The Washington Times regarding the lab.[28][29] Later, US politicians began propagating the idea, including Senator Tom Cotton, President Donald Trump, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.[29] One scientist from Hong Kong, Li-Meng Yan, fled China and supported the idea. Many authorities debunked the conspiracy theory, including American biologist Richard Ebright, NIAID director Anthony Fauci, prominent scientists, and the US intelligence community.[29][failed verification] The conspiracy theory spread widely on social media, but subsequent scientific investigation showed that the virus originated in bats.[25]
So you agree with Wikipedia being biased against the misinformation of the lab leak? You're even fine with them asserting it's a conspiracy theory and shutting down conversation about the possibility?
I was kind of unclear here intentionally. The source being wild has been disproven. This leaves lab leak as the only viable theory. So while it hasnt been proven, it sure as hell is the current theory.
The point I was making is that the political position set by wikipedia proves the bias. If they reported in a neutral fashion they would have NEVER called it a conspiracy theory. They might have said that we lack the evidence of it being a lab leak and wild source is quite likely over lab leak.
The bias is proven though and then the person I replied to was alright with them ignoring 'misinformation' but this is tantamount to agreeing with the bias.
If you step back, early in the covid lab leak story is that the lead scientists from said wuhan lab published in nature mag the source appears to be bat. Afterall, it is indeed quite related. I believe what this says is that it wasn't an intention leak, they just didn't think they did it.
The follow up theory is that it was intention but not by them. Intentional by someone who was actively in a cold war with china... who might that be... oh right...
> The Mueller investigation culminated with the Mueller Report, which concluded that though the Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference and expected to benefit from it, there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy charges against Trump or his associates.
This makes it sound like there was something underhanded there, and their source for it was some opinion piece news article rather than the report itself. The fact is that the report conceded that they found no evidence which linked Trump or his campaign of colluding, conspiring with Russia.
The alleged hacking or leaking of Clinton and DNC information under the Obama administration by Russians or other hackers was nothing to do with Trump. He "welcomed" it like any politician welcomes bad news for their opponent, but it's a total mischaracterization of the report, which is really a incredibly problematic indictment of the wild conspiracy theories, lies, and misinformation pushed by many politicians and corporations and people around this.
And major related articles from this one, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates.... When you look at other kinds of misinformation or even unproven allegations made by less favorable sides of politics, the articles often lead with "unsubstantiated claims", "without evidence", etc. This Trump Russia conspiracy theory clearly should be treated the same way, but it is not, wikipedia is still attempting to keep it alive and is trying to salvage the reputations of those who perpetuated it and those who fell for it.
I love how one can see the examples and the (political stances) effect which is being described especially when this question is asked by reading the responses to the answers.
I first noticed it with the article on the Orlando gay club shooting.
The initial article contained unverified reports that the suspect was himself gay, and that that was his motive for the attack. ...and mods on Wikipedia were deleting any edits that referenced the fact that the suspect's father was a former Taliban official that was admitted under the Obama administration, and was politically active in Florida, attending a number of Hillary Clinton talks despite video evidence.
References to the suspect verbally professing his allegiance to ISIS was constantly struck from the article with constant rewrites that the motive was that he himself was gay.
It was wild to see the disinformation being pushed by mods.
I think the clearest example would be the Gamergate page. Whole page being rewritten twice a day, conservative outlets being blacklisted as sources for not supporting the narrative while random blogs were fine, long time editors being banned from editing because they wanted it to be 'neutral', and a lot of users being banned for pointing out that a lot of the claims were not supported by the questionable sources.
For a more recent example that was posted on HN a few days ago: the proposed deletion of a page on mass-killings under Communism. Most of the arguments on the discussion page were from power-editors complaining that the page was "making Communism look bad" and that it was used for "anti-revolutionary talking-points". While the deletion is still being voted on, gives you an insight into the culture.
> An administrator or other editor is in the process of closing this discussion. Please do not contribute further to it; the result should be posted shortly.
Note that nomination for deletion is not some vote count, especially if people were encouraged elsewhere to come there and blindly vote without any prior contributions.
This is Openreach we're talking about. Everything happens in 6 month intervals. So those 18 months were likely: 6 months to realize there's a problem, 6 months to assign a contractor to the ticket, 6 months before their next availability for the job.
