Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date; its perceived unreliability as to its correctness is largely a misunderstanding that arose from misconceptions as to why one can’t (or shouldn’t, depending on case) cite it in academia. People think that it can’t be cited because of its unreliability but in reality it’s simply because it’s a third hand source; i.e. a resource.
Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.
Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date
How did you determine that?
Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.
True, but basically nobody does check that the sources are valid, and they often aren’t.
How do you know they often aren’t? I’m an academic and regularly use wikipedia to find citations for sources. I’ve have yet to come across any citations that were wrong.
Here are two pages I’ve gone through a lot I can verify have correct citations in them. In fact, one of the citations in one of these is my research! which I know for certain was cited correctly.
Post truther is when you don’t believe that people have the magic ability to determine if something is true by pure gut feeling.
All the liberal-fascists here whine about misinformation and post-truth, and then through a fucking fit that anyone suggest that they actually be serious about that.
You people don’t want to combat misinformation, you want the misinformation you already believe to go unquestioned.
Well none of us are immune to lies, but how is that a problem specific to wikipedia? Isn’t that a much larger issue regarding humanity and our media ecosystem?
If you click on either of those wikipedia pages I sent to you, what citations do you believe are lies or used incorrectly ?
For anything that is not politically contentious, it’s very good. Even the politically contentious stuff tries to give the most “balanced”/“mainstream” interpretation usually.
There are communities of people which hyperfixate on certain topics. Think dinosaurs and trains. If a serious Dino-head sees a mistake about the length of Diplodocus, they are going to drop everything and fix it immediately.
I routinely check wiki sources - I’ve taught a lot of college kids that as a way to quickly find sources for papers. Most of the time, topics I know a lot about from my own educational background match what I see on wiki and cite the same kinds of sources I would use.
It’s not perfect - there’s the infamous story of an American teenager writing all of Scots Wikipedia without knowing any Scots - but you have to respect the fact that there are a lot of people who are obsessed with certain topics and will watch their pet articles like a hawk.
Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date; its perceived unreliability as to its correctness is largely a misunderstanding that arose from misconceptions as to why one can’t (or shouldn’t, depending on case) cite it in academia. People think that it can’t be cited because of its unreliability but in reality it’s simply because it’s a third hand source; i.e. a resource.
Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.
How did you determine that?
True, but basically nobody does check that the sources are valid, and they often aren’t.
How do you know they often aren’t? I’m an academic and regularly use wikipedia to find citations for sources. I’ve have yet to come across any citations that were wrong.
Because I see the things they’re getting from Wikipedia and I am them, and they admit they didn’t actually check the sources.
How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?
I’ll click on them and then read them.
Here are two pages I’ve gone through a lot I can verify have correct citations in them. In fact, one of the citations in one of these is my research! which I know for certain was cited correctly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software
And how will that allow you to know if they’re right or not?
Post-truther detected.
Post truther is when you don’t believe that people have the magic ability to determine if something is true by pure gut feeling.
All the liberal-fascists here whine about misinformation and post-truth, and then through a fucking fit that anyone suggest that they actually be serious about that.
You people don’t want to combat misinformation, you want the misinformation you already believe to go unquestioned.
Then I read them and use my critical thinking skills. For research I put trust in peer review articles by reputable journals.
But regardless,
Isn’t that a broader question as to what we consider truth and not something specific to wikipedia ?
How are you able to determine matters of fact by pure critical thinking? Are you really claiming that you are immune to lies?
Great! I wish Wikipedia was held to that standard, rather than regularly using tabloids, think tanks, and literal propaganda outlets.
I’m genuinely curious, what are your standards for truth? What are your standards for facts?
Does Wikipedia use tabloids, think tanks, and literal propaganda outlets?
Is there anything that’s not factual in Wikipedia that survives their current editing process?
Well none of us are immune to lies, but how is that a problem specific to wikipedia? Isn’t that a much larger issue regarding humanity and our media ecosystem?
If you click on either of those wikipedia pages I sent to you, what citations do you believe are lies or used incorrectly ?
Subject matter experts do still exist. They’re dying off, and it’s unclear how many more we intend to create. But we do still have some.
You can’t be a subject matter expert on everything though?
For anything that is not politically contentious, it’s very good. Even the politically contentious stuff tries to give the most “balanced”/“mainstream” interpretation usually.
There are communities of people which hyperfixate on certain topics. Think dinosaurs and trains. If a serious Dino-head sees a mistake about the length of Diplodocus, they are going to drop everything and fix it immediately.
I routinely check wiki sources - I’ve taught a lot of college kids that as a way to quickly find sources for papers. Most of the time, topics I know a lot about from my own educational background match what I see on wiki and cite the same kinds of sources I would use.
It’s not perfect - there’s the infamous story of an American teenager writing all of Scots Wikipedia without knowing any Scots - but you have to respect the fact that there are a lot of people who are obsessed with certain topics and will watch their pet articles like a hawk.