6 ms·

Trusting Wikipedia as a source here? Pretty ironic. Of course the Guardian (a competitor) was happy to quote them as a reputable source.

driverdan 7y ago
Wikipedia is not a primary source. Even so it's more trustworthy than The Daily Mail.
roywiggins 7y ago
The editors of an encyclopedia talking about their own rules is literally a primary source. That's what a primary source is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, surely if there's anyone who knows which sources are worth using, it would be the editors of the world's biggest encyclopedia?
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  It's sort of funny how knee-jerk "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has become. It is among other things a user-editable encyclopedia. It's also the largest project of the Wikimedia foundation, an online-encyclopedia development initiative with a paid staff, and one of the highest-traffic websites in the world. As you say, it is a primary source here. The question isn't what's on the Daily Mail's anyone-can-edit Wikipedia page, it's what a closed group of encyclopedia overseers have decided constitutes an acceptable source. What's more, the closest competitor, Britannica, relies on finding expert contributors instead of listing specific reputable sources, so its editors wouldn't be nearly as relevant here!
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  >The editors of an encyclopedia Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is a point here, it's a crowdsourced publication that purports to be a neutral source, despite well documented conflicts among the editors.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Crowdsourced is the only difference here. Encyclopedia editors can also be biased. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/...
  - sam0x17 7y ago
    I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things. Conflict is a sign of trustworthiness here. Even a cursory glance at how wikipedia is actually structured vs how early 2000s news media and schools portrayed it will lead you to the conclusion that it's a significantly better primary source than any other encyclopedia currently available. The sort of stuff in wikipedia that traditionally might be slightly biased (current events, very new political stuff) doesn't even appear in other encyclopedias until a decade later, so that has to be worth something as well. The number of eyes actively vetting and checking and re-checking every change on a moderately trafficked wikipedia page probably dwarfs the total number of editorial staff for even the largest of encyclopedias. The average accuracy is just going to be higher in a situation like that, even with people occasionally defacing pages.
    - creaghpatr 7y ago
      >I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things. You have got to be kidding me, how can you say that with a straight face? https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-...
      - sam0x17 7y ago
        The Vox article agrees with me? Better to have dissension and discourse rather than a bunch of editors from the same camp, whatever camp that may be.
notus 7y ago
The Guardian is not a competitor to the Daily Mail. Completely different class.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  It is when it comes to SERP.

driverdan 7y ago

Wikipedia is not a primary source. Even so it's more trustworthy than The Daily Mail.

roywiggins 7y ago

The editors of an encyclopedia talking about their own rules is literally a primary source. That's what a primary source is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, surely if there's anyone who knows which sources are worth using, it would be the editors of the world's biggest encyclopedia?

Bartweiss 7y ago
It's sort of funny how knee-jerk "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has become. It is among other things a user-editable encyclopedia. It's also the largest project of the Wikimedia foundation, an online-encyclopedia development initiative with a paid staff, and one of the highest-traffic websites in the world. As you say, it is a primary source here. The question isn't what's on the Daily Mail's anyone-can-edit Wikipedia page, it's what a closed group of encyclopedia overseers have decided constitutes an acceptable source. What's more, the closest competitor, Britannica, relies on finding expert contributors instead of listing specific reputable sources, so its editors wouldn't be nearly as relevant here!
creaghpatr 7y ago
>The editors of an encyclopedia Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is a point here, it's a crowdsourced publication that purports to be a neutral source, despite well documented conflicts among the editors.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Crowdsourced is the only difference here. Encyclopedia editors can also be biased. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/...
- sam0x17 7y ago
  I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things. Conflict is a sign of trustworthiness here. Even a cursory glance at how wikipedia is actually structured vs how early 2000s news media and schools portrayed it will lead you to the conclusion that it's a significantly better primary source than any other encyclopedia currently available. The sort of stuff in wikipedia that traditionally might be slightly biased (current events, very new political stuff) doesn't even appear in other encyclopedias until a decade later, so that has to be worth something as well. The number of eyes actively vetting and checking and re-checking every change on a moderately trafficked wikipedia page probably dwarfs the total number of editorial staff for even the largest of encyclopedias. The average accuracy is just going to be higher in a situation like that, even with people occasionally defacing pages.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    >I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things. You have got to be kidding me, how can you say that with a straight face? https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-...
    - sam0x17 7y ago
      The Vox article agrees with me? Better to have dissension and discourse rather than a bunch of editors from the same camp, whatever camp that may be.

notus 7y ago

The Guardian is not a competitor to the Daily Mail. Completely different class.

creaghpatr 7y ago
It is when it comes to SERP.