3 ms·
I 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 w
by whyever 11y ago
I 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.