Oh, nice execution. I had the same idea during the pandemic. Though my aesthetics are completely different as I focused more on the discussions on HN, as they often have some golden nuggets. Yours is of course way more polished, as I basically just slapped bootstrap on my database front end.
Wikepedia, the most untrustworthy source ever, cases and cases of people who gained access to the article and completely changed it with fake information:
1. Assassin's Creed video game: A guy changed Japanese history by introducing a black samurai. The whole dramas was so bad that Janapense officials got involved, and one of the reasons Ubisoft Studio which was already broke due to DEI, went even more bankrupt.
2. A lawyer changed specific laws on Wikipedia and waited, as expected, judges were caught using the "fabricated law" against real cases with real consequences.
>1. Assassin's Creed video game: A guy changed Japanese history by introducing a black samurai. The whole dramas was so bad that Janapense officials got involved, and one of the reasons Ubisoft Studio which was already broke due to DEI, went even more bankrupt.
Honestly one of the best Wikipedia talk pages I had ever read, during the controversy. I read amazing arguments well put from both sides, but personally fell on the "Yes its fine to call him a samurai" side based on a very good argument about how the language was applied in that time period. But I felt I could strongly grasp the other sides argument too.
> A guy changed Japanese history by introducing a black samurai.
First I've heard about this controversy, and I've never played the game, but I could see if a historian was a cite for something and they were saying different things in japanese and english, that the english wikipedia would end up citing inaccurate things.
There's been problems in the past with the deletionist faction on wikipedia or moderators abusing small fiefdoms - some of which has even ended up here on HN, but in this case, wikipedia just citing information from a supposedly reputable source seems to be wikipedia operating as intended.
A tale as old as time. I don't just want to know the instances of harm, I want to know how representative they are supposed to be. And I think people who have thought through the latter question aren't the types to do the former.
In neither cases it was really a flaw of wikipedia, the model is clear, contributions should include content and sources, and it's the responsibility of the reader to check the reference.
I get it if bullshit is uploaded and a layman is fooled, but both cases involve trained professionals who know very damn well what a source is, judges and journalists, and it was principally their failure, not of Wikipedia.
Yeah, and all search engines can index a website with fake info to the top of the results for a question, so that makes search engines a terrible tool for looking up information. /s
Wikipedia never was a definitive or authoritative source on anything, that is by design, that is on the official guidelines. You can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia, you must provide sources for information, if no sources exist for an excerpt of an article then it must be tagged as citation needed.
Oh, nice execution. I had the same idea during the pandemic. Though my aesthetics are completely different as I focused more on the discussions on HN, as they often have some golden nuggets. Yours is of course way more polished, as I basically just slapped bootstrap on my database front end.
https://www.mostdiscussed.com/
Interesting how different our "popularity score" is though: https://www.mostdiscussed.com/popular
You don't seem to group them by category, right? I found it quite interesting: https://www.mostdiscussed.com/popular/topics
Btw, your "new" tab seems to be broken, as it is showing articles from 2019.
Cool! I’ve been using this bookmark for years:
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=wikipedia.org
Which is denser on information, faster to read, more accessible and works without javascript.
I did whitelist the orangecrumb domain for JS temporarily though. Does look neat, but not the the sort of interface I'm into.
If you want more than that you can use HN's BigQuery free dataset. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40644563
> Discover Wikipedia articles popular on Hacker News
Wikipedia articles _and YT videos_.
Amazing result, very precious, just skimming in it for a few minutes was immensely enriching.
Nicely done! Would be interesting to sort by upvotes and/or comment count as well.
I have something similar:
https://www.mostdiscussed.com/popular
Other modes worth trying: "Mailing Lists", "Research Papers"
nice! kind of similar but re-made a scrollable wikipedia a few weeks ago: https://quack.sdan.io/
Looks great, especially on mobile, congrats!
5 stars, delved
Yaaaayy - MORE Commiepedia!
Wikepedia, the most untrustworthy source ever, cases and cases of people who gained access to the article and completely changed it with fake information:
1. Assassin's Creed video game: A guy changed Japanese history by introducing a black samurai. The whole dramas was so bad that Janapense officials got involved, and one of the reasons Ubisoft Studio which was already broke due to DEI, went even more bankrupt.
2. A lawyer changed specific laws on Wikipedia and waited, as expected, judges were caught using the "fabricated law" against real cases with real consequences.
I could go on and on, but hey, you do you :)
>1. Assassin's Creed video game: A guy changed Japanese history by introducing a black samurai. The whole dramas was so bad that Janapense officials got involved, and one of the reasons Ubisoft Studio which was already broke due to DEI, went even more bankrupt.
Honestly one of the best Wikipedia talk pages I had ever read, during the controversy. I read amazing arguments well put from both sides, but personally fell on the "Yes its fine to call him a samurai" side based on a very good argument about how the language was applied in that time period. But I felt I could strongly grasp the other sides argument too.
> A guy changed Japanese history by introducing a black samurai.
Playable character in Samurai Warriors 5.
I was wondering what the heck ① was all about and found this site in a search that seems to have a bone to pick with Thomas Lockley. https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/07/10/perfidious-histor... https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/05/29/disappointment-in...
First I've heard about this controversy, and I've never played the game, but I could see if a historian was a cite for something and they were saying different things in japanese and english, that the english wikipedia would end up citing inaccurate things.
There's been problems in the past with the deletionist faction on wikipedia or moderators abusing small fiefdoms - some of which has even ended up here on HN, but in this case, wikipedia just citing information from a supposedly reputable source seems to be wikipedia operating as intended.
A technology that is used up to a million times a day is bad, here's the proof, two times it has failed:
A tale as old as time. I don't just want to know the instances of harm, I want to know how representative they are supposed to be. And I think people who have thought through the latter question aren't the types to do the former.
In neither cases it was really a flaw of wikipedia, the model is clear, contributions should include content and sources, and it's the responsibility of the reader to check the reference.
I get it if bullshit is uploaded and a layman is fooled, but both cases involve trained professionals who know very damn well what a source is, judges and journalists, and it was principally their failure, not of Wikipedia.
Yeah, and all search engines can index a website with fake info to the top of the results for a question, so that makes search engines a terrible tool for looking up information. /s
Wikipedia never was a definitive or authoritative source on anything, that is by design, that is on the official guidelines. You can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia, you must provide sources for information, if no sources exist for an excerpt of an article then it must be tagged as citation needed.