4 ms·

I don't think the person you are replying to was saying that this was for sure an instance, but it definitely pays to view even Wikipedia with a critical eye.

I don't think the person you are replying to was saying that this was for sure an instance, but it definitely pays to view even Wikipedia with a critical eye. Wikipedia has gatekeepers and wikilawyers that keep highly contested/popular and even some niche pages from being altered even with sources. Many have been through it, it happened to me.

dredmorbius 5y ago
It's still more useful to identify specific errors, and point to a better source. Wikipedia isn't perfect, yes, but it's been repeatedly show to be quite good. In particular, it synpsizes longer-term stories well, in ways that the news media often fail to (e.g., neither the linked NYT article nor its earlier expose, despite their length, both of which I'd read before linking Wikipedia). For the purposes of identifying the basic outlines of the ex-parrot^Wcompany, the passage I've quoted is helpful in esablishing when the firm began operations, etc. Again, I had no information going in. The meta-discussion of Wikipedia's accurac without identifying specific issues does little for any readers of this thread. It didn't with the first comment on that topic, and it continues to be the case. I'm done.
- effingwewt 5y ago
  More useful is a bullshit metric. You seemed to take all of this as an attack against you personally, I assure you it was not, please calm down. No one said there was a better source, only that Wikipedia is far from perfect. No specifics need be given Wikipedia when its a truism that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Nevertheless here[1] is a page from Wikipedia about the reliability of Wikipedia. And since you are asking for specifics as if none exist, here[2] is an HN thread about issues with Wikipedia in which many examples and specifics are given. Now I, too, am done. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a.... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21699011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21699011
  - effingwewt 5y ago
    Replying to myself since an article[1] even worse than those I posted hit HN 10/09/2021 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28808516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28808516

dredmorbius 5y ago

It's still more useful to identify specific errors, and point to a better source. Wikipedia isn't perfect, yes, but it's been repeatedly show to be quite good. In particular, it synpsizes longer-term stories well, in ways that the news media often fail to (e.g., neither the linked NYT article nor its earlier expose, despite their length, both of which I'd read before linking Wikipedia). For the purposes of identifying the basic outlines of the ex-parrot^Wcompany, the passage I've quoted is helpful in esablishing when the firm began operations, etc. Again, I had no information going in. The meta-discussion of Wikipedia's accurac without identifying specific issues does little for any readers of this thread. It didn't with the first comment on that topic, and it continues to be the case. I'm done.

effingwewt 5y ago
More useful is a bullshit metric. You seemed to take all of this as an attack against you personally, I assure you it was not, please calm down. No one said there was a better source, only that Wikipedia is far from perfect. No specifics need be given Wikipedia when its a truism that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Nevertheless here[1] is a page from Wikipedia about the reliability of Wikipedia. And since you are asking for specifics as if none exist, here[2] is an HN thread about issues with Wikipedia in which many examples and specifics are given. Now I, too, am done. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a.... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21699011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21699011
- effingwewt 5y ago
  Replying to myself since an article[1] even worse than those I posted hit HN 10/09/2021 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28808516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28808516