3 ms·
I'm surprised this doesn't happen way more often with many other pages. But we were all warned not to take Wikipedia as a single source of credible information.
by sandrobfc 7y ago
I'm surprised this doesn't happen way more often with many other pages. But we were all warned not to take Wikipedia as a single source of credible information. If bold statements or dubious information is not properly linked to credible sources (and even then...), don't take it as 100% true.
- point78 7y agoBest way I've used Wikipedia is to find the source of whatever sentence I'm on and see how ridiculous that source is...a lot of Huffington post and trash mags stuff for example
- freeflight 7y agoI usually try to go through the effort of looking up the citations for particularly controversial statements. But often that ends up being some book reference I can't find a free online version for.
- swebs 7y agoOften bias on Wikipedia is more easily revealed by what was removed rather than what was added. If you really want to see what's been covered up, check the edit history and the talk page. "Wikilawyers" are good at invoking whatever community guideline they can to get things added or removed.
- ameixaseca 7y agoThis happens way more often with many other pages as well. It just doesn't get the spotlight of media attention all the time.
- uranusjr 7y agoAlso worth noting is the GFW bans Wikipedia, limiting its popularity in China (most prefer Baidu’s equivalent, and those stay are comparably more liberal). So things don’t get that bad unless there’s an outside trigger to make average Chinese users take extra efforts accessing Wikipedia.