3 ms·
Why doesn't that cause Wikipedia to completely break down then? Wikipedia tries to be in some sense an arbiter of truth, they do get it wrong frequently, and ye
by landryraccoon 6y ago
Why doesn't that cause Wikipedia to completely break down then? Wikipedia tries to be in some sense an arbiter of truth, they do get it wrong frequently, and yet it still holds together.
- lopmotr 6y agoWikipedia requires sources for its information, especially anything contentious. If Twitter somehow obtained the manpower and speed to do that, then it might be OK but there's no hope of that ever being possible. The rate of content generation is too high, the demand for immediate publication is too high, and the effect of removing something a few days after it's posted is too little too late because it will have already had its effect. Nobody would use such a slow and boring service where almost every post gets automatically put on hold until someone can find a source. Users obviously won't do their own research - that's like schoolwork! Wish somebody a happy birthday. Wait till tomorrow for Twitter's employees or crowdsourcing to verify it. And it only gets verified if that information is actually available to them.
- 1123581321 6y agoWikipedia has a community system and process to delete and revert statements, and contributors can mostly only evolve a collection of documents that do not draw attention to the contributor. Individual contributions mostly do not go viral. And for whatever reason, enough members prefer this system to keep it.