3 ms·
If you are talking about the "news"-articles, you are right. With the same arguments I could argue that >almost every< historical fact/source is somehow modifie
by drinchev 11y ago
If you are talking about the "news"-articles, you are right. With the same arguments I could argue that >almost every< historical fact/source is somehow modified, according to political/moral/memory problems.
Just to mention the total media collapse these days, where Russia & "The West" have so different facts put out in the wild, that you actually can't find what happened, by only reading and selecting a source. What's interesting is that both media don't provide any evidence of what actually happened, they just spread out opinions by other people, which are in most cases subjective.
What Wikipedia did ( and is doing very good ), though is that it gathered multiple knowledge bases under one roof - very general, sometimes, but accurate enough. For example, I've graduated law and could claim that what I can find as articles on that topic is very basic, but true. Also I'm professionally working as a web-dev and still can claim that most articles I find are precisely moderated and reflect the science-books.
It's so funny I always like to "Let's check wikipedia" and people usually reply "That's not an accurate source of information", which IMHO is wrong. Wikipedia is still the most accurate (general) knowledge base to me.
- whyever 11y agoI remember that when Wikipedia was new, people were more willing to trust something that a random guy said on his website or in some book rather than what was written on Wikipedia. I never understood that. Wikipedia at least has more eyeballs.
- talmand 11y agoI feel somewhat the opposite. The problem, as I see it, is the more people involved the more difficult it is to refute. It's the idea that the more people say it the more true it becomes. Never mind the blatant disregard for hard facts with articles based on subjective opinions in certain topics, Wikipedia is not an objective source of information to me. Sure, I use it occasionally for generic stuff but I also pay attention to the listed sources. I read them for myself not trusting the people that created the article on Wikipedia.
- whyever 11y agoI agree that you have to be very critical of Wikipedia articles. Often they are of poor quality and contain mistakes. But that is true for most sources. My point is that I don't see how Wikipedia is worse than some random website or book.