2 ms·
I didn't argue that Wikipedia always was correct (no source is that, I'd guess), just that it smelled really bad to dismiss it with just hand waving. It do have
by berntb 10y ago
I didn't argue that Wikipedia always was correct (no source is that, I'd guess), just that it smelled really bad to dismiss it with just hand waving. It do have sources and have been whetted (for reasonably popular subjects.)
- 50CNT 10y agoWasn't trying to imply you meant that. It's more that I could see where someone like that could come from, dismissing the Wikipedia article out of habit, especially if they've been involved with the project. Not backing it up with additional sources is of course bad form, but finding and linking extra sources is additional work. Minor nitpick, vetting is someone checking something and approving it, whereas whetting is grinding away metal to sharpen a blade.
- berntb 10y agoOK, you more or less agree with my argument. Enough about that, then. I am curious about something else. Do you have non anecdotal information about Wikipedia's general dependability? How is the dependability for large subjects? For subjects like a poet where less than a hundred people even recognize the name? (The last I saw on this was years ago, when Wikipedia edged out the Encyclopædia Britannica. It would be strange to be less dependable now?!)
- berntb 10y agoIt seems I was trolled, but in a funny way. I discuss how you can see bad behaviour from even old accounts at HN, dismissing serious references with just hand waving. This got a well written answer about how non serious my example reference was, arguing with a family anecdote. When I ask for better sources (I don't know the writer or his/her family from Adam/Eve) -- then I get no answer. :-)