3 ms·

Thank you for that clarification. My point was that basing your argument on a paragraph from the Wiki doesn't really hold water. Have you gone through those cit

by bholdr 11y ago

Thank you for that clarification. My point was that basing your argument on a paragraph from the Wiki doesn't really hold water. Have you gone through those cited articles? Have you checked the data? You trust that those statements next to the citation are representative of what is actually been said in the article itself. Wikipedia is great, I am all for it. I just personally wouldn't building my argument solely based on what is said there.

abandonliberty 11y ago
The scope and depth of human knowledge is so large that validating accuracy of information is humanly impossible for most interesting subjects beyond experts and the very interested. You're absolutely correct that information needs to be validated, but wrong in singling out Wikipedia. This rabbit hole goes pretty far. I've found false citations from published articles. Conservatively assuming 25 citations per article, the amount you have to validate is 25^(citation depth). There are 11 citations in the above quote, so here's the homework you're requesting: Level 0 validation: 11 Articles Level 1 validation: 275 Articles Level 2 validation: 6875 Articles The knee-jerk distrust of Wikipedia is so old that a paper was published in Nature in 2005 showing accuracy close to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Just like any other source, you have to assess it. How many editors, to which degree is it a target for vandalism or astroturfing, how well is the article written, the type of the subject material, etc. Therefore I would expect britannica-level accuracy on the caffeine page, and that's pretty good for most discussions.
- bholdr 11y ago
  Fair enough. Valid points. Still I believe we conflating things here. I believe encyclopedias are good source for well established facts, don't think they are the main source for citation when discussing hypotheses that still undergoing testing. When it comes to Wikipedia, you basically trust it to be up to date with state of the art. Yes, research seems to show that it converges towards some notion of the truth, but it takes time and ultimately you don't know if what you are reading at the moment is a true representation of what was actually written in the original paper. Again, not saying this is bad, I would just be cautious about accepting an argument which is solely a copy&paste from a Wikipedia page that makes claims based on handful publications that I presume the person posting haven't read. To sum up, I am not against Wikipedia, I am somewhat cautions accepting wild statements like "Drinking coffee can Kill you" just because someone took the time to put it into a wikipage (with a bunch of citations). http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/12/13/australias-main-national-sport-is-leadership-spills-according-to-wikipedia http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/12/13/australias...

by bholdr 11y ago

abandonliberty 11y ago

The scope and depth of human knowledge is so large that validating accuracy of information is humanly impossible for most interesting subjects beyond experts and the very interested. You're absolutely correct that information needs to be validated, but wrong in singling out Wikipedia. This rabbit hole goes pretty far. I've found false citations from published articles. Conservatively assuming 25 citations per article, the amount you have to validate is 25^(citation depth). There are 11 citations in the above quote, so here's the homework you're requesting: Level 0 validation: 11 Articles Level 1 validation: 275 Articles Level 2 validation: 6875 Articles The knee-jerk distrust of Wikipedia is so old that a paper was published in Nature in 2005 showing accuracy close to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Just like any other source, you have to assess it. How many editors, to which degree is it a target for vandalism or astroturfing, how well is the article written, the type of the subject material, etc. Therefore I would expect britannica-level accuracy on the caffeine page, and that's pretty good for most discussions.

bholdr 11y ago
Fair enough. Valid points. Still I believe we conflating things here. I believe encyclopedias are good source for well established facts, don't think they are the main source for citation when discussing hypotheses that still undergoing testing. When it comes to Wikipedia, you basically trust it to be up to date with state of the art. Yes, research seems to show that it converges towards some notion of the truth, but it takes time and ultimately you don't know if what you are reading at the moment is a true representation of what was actually written in the original paper. Again, not saying this is bad, I would just be cautious about accepting an argument which is solely a copy&paste from a Wikipedia page that makes claims based on handful publications that I presume the person posting haven't read. To sum up, I am not against Wikipedia, I am somewhat cautions accepting wild statements like "Drinking coffee can Kill you" just because someone took the time to put it into a wikipage (with a bunch of citations). http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/12/13/australias-main-national-sport-is-leadership-spills-according-to-wikipedia http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/12/13/australias...