4 ms·

> people generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information. It's the 9th-most viewed site in the world That assumes people are interested in factua

> people generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information. It's the 9th-most viewed site in the world That assumes people are interested in factual accuracy, and I don't think that's the case. Tabloid newspapers and celebrity gossip draw many readers too. Recent events should make clear that priorities are elsewhere. It's a matter of degree, of course. If I'm writing something professionally or if something serious depends on it, I'm not depending on Wikipedia. If I'm trying to find the name of that recording by that musician that's on the tip of my tongue - sure, why not.

wpietri 8y ago
Yes, exactly. Even you generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information. Sometimes you dig deeper. Which is fine, that's what Wikipedia wants people to do.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Even you generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information That reduces it to a binary choice: Accept or not accept. A point of my comment is that the choice is not binary.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    Most of the time the behavior is binary. People go in search of an answer. They find one, accept it, and then stop looking. I agree that there are sometimes more complex behaviors in relation to information, which is why I said "generally".
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > Most of the time the behavior is binary I'm not sure I agree, but it would be interesting to study. I think people assign a trust value to almost any information they encounter. For example, I would guess that you assign a 'trust value' to this comment based on where it is (HN), who wrote it (a commenter that you likely don't know), how it's written (the sophistication of the English and the argument), the emotion (sarcastic? angry? humorous? all caps? calm and reasoned? etc.), etc. On the other hand, for some things I agree that I don't care much about the trust value because I don't care much about the accuracy, such as 'who sang that song I can't get out of my head'. Which means we have to draw a distinction between trust and caring about trust.

wpietri 8y ago

Yes, exactly. Even you generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information. Sometimes you dig deeper. Which is fine, that's what Wikipedia wants people to do.

forapurpose 8y ago
> Even you generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information That reduces it to a binary choice: Accept or not accept. A point of my comment is that the choice is not binary.
- wpietri 8y ago
  Most of the time the behavior is binary. People go in search of an answer. They find one, accept it, and then stop looking. I agree that there are sometimes more complex behaviors in relation to information, which is why I said "generally".
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > Most of the time the behavior is binary I'm not sure I agree, but it would be interesting to study. I think people assign a trust value to almost any information they encounter. For example, I would guess that you assign a 'trust value' to this comment based on where it is (HN), who wrote it (a commenter that you likely don't know), how it's written (the sophistication of the English and the argument), the emotion (sarcastic? angry? humorous? all caps? calm and reasoned? etc.), etc. On the other hand, for some things I agree that I don't care much about the trust value because I don't care much about the accuracy, such as 'who sang that song I can't get out of my head'. Which means we have to draw a distinction between trust and caring about trust.