Post #2033705
2026-02-03 19:41 UTC
Replies (9)
-
@TheRealKuni@piefed.social 2026-02-03 19:53
That’s an encyclopedia’s _job._
-
@Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 2026-02-03 19:54
simple.wikipedia.org exists for anyone who wants easier to understand articles.
-
@ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2026-02-03 20:12
I don't disagree that some articles could use better information hierarchy. Headings could make that experience *way* better. But to say that the info shouldn't be there at all is short-sighted and ignores the point of an encyclopedia.
-
@blueryth@lemmy.world 2026-02-03 19:59
> That simply is not what people want when they look for information. Well, except for those who do. The problem is a use case mismatch. I'd argue, if anything, an encyclopedia should contain the minutiae. Unfortunately, there's no huge compendium of brief but accurate and sourced synopsis of the same topics. To be fair, we've never really had one. I agree with the editors that embedded AI summaries are not a good idea (at the moment, at least). Users can bring summarizers to the data set of that's their want, or someone (maybe even wikimedia) will find a way to provide this in a way that preserves the underlying data's validity. Stripping Wikipedia of its full context seems like a bad idea.
-
@Widdershins@lemmy.world 2026-02-03 20:36
Wikipedia already has a simplified version. Literally simple.wikipedia... etc. For example, the page on the [Vietnam War](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) can inform you with a few paragraphs on each of the key points of the war. Harold Holt's page has 3 paragraphs and an info box. It isn't thorough by any means. It does, however, give the reader a chance to learn about something real quick with lesser chances of getting stuck in the mud and falling down wikipedia rabbit holes. Somebody just needs to inform the simpletons that there is an easier to digest format already. No need to shrink a well of knowledge when there is a drinking fountain next to it for those who didn't bring a bucket and rope.
-
@thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2026-02-03 21:21
> That simply is not what people want when they look for information. What? Is there anyone out there that prefers to find small bits of information lying around various sources over a concise summary followed by a solid fleshing out, all in one place? I honestly cannot imagine a use case where I would prefer that a source omits a bunch of information rather than just structure the information so that I can find what I'm looking for. Wikipedia does that. That's why you have dedicated articles for all those battles in WWII, with their own table of contents and summaries to help you digest them. There has literally never in human history existed any source of knowledge coming even close to structuring and summarising this amount of information as well as Wikipedia has, and you're advocating that they should make it... not that?
-
@acosmichippo@lemmy.world 2026-02-04 08:04
This is crazy. Articles *already start with perfectly good summaries*. look at your example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II the *very first paragraph* is this: >**World War II**[\[b\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#cite_note-2) or the **Second World War** (1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945) was a [global conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war "World war") between two [coalitions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition "Coalition"): the [Allies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II "Allies of World War II")and the [Axis powers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers "Axis powers"). [Nearly all of the world's countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_by_country "World War II by country") participated, with many nations mobilising their resources in pursuit of [total war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war "Total war"). [Tanks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_II "Tanks in World War II") and [aircraft played major roles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_warfare_of_World_War_II "Air warfare of World War II"), enabling the [strategic bombing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing "Strategic bombing") of cities and delivery of the first and only [nuclear weapons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon "Nuclear weapon") ever used in war. World War II is the [deadliest conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll "List of wars by death toll") in history, causing the death of over 60 million people. Millions died in [genocides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide "Genocide"), including [the Holocaust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust "The Holocaust"), and by massacres, starvation, and disease. After the Allied victory, [Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied-occupied_Germany "Allied-occupied Germany"), [Austria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied-occupied_Austria "Allied-occupied Austria"), [Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan "Occupation of Japan"), and [Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea#Post%E2%80%93World_War_II "Division of Korea") were occupied, and German and Japanese leaders were put on trial for [war crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime "War crime"). Why do we need any more summaries than that?
-
@in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 2026-02-03 19:53
I would argue that there should be a simplified section and a classic ALL THE THINGS version under a "Would you like to know more?" button. I cannot tell you the hours I've spent following wikipedia rabbit holes and how rewarding that has been to me.
-
@antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-02-04 05:21
To all the people downvoting the above comment, when was the last time you've read a WP article of 10k+ characters from top to bottom?