3 ms·

Yeah I could do this. But I could also just accept the fact that Wikipedia isn't even willing to delete contested information when offered proof. I don't need

Yeah I could do this. But I could also just accept the fact that Wikipedia isn't even willing to delete contested information when offered proof. I don't need the facts to be in the entry. I don't care. I only care about the fake facts in there and ask myself how much of the rest of Wikipedia is also riddled with falsehoods and nobody would want to remove that if shown actual state documents that show what is wrong. I did not want it to become a primary source. I just hoped they would remove information that has new evidence not known to the original source.

ALittleLight 5y ago
There are problems with the approach of requiring third party reputable sources, for example the problems you are running into. There are associated costs, some published information will be wrong. There are also problems with the alternatives - e.g. primary sources providing motivated misinformation or volunteer editors being fooled by bad sources. It's easy to find problems with wikipedia's current model, but harder, I think, to argue that their model is the wrong choice.
- sdoering 5y ago
  Evaluating the quality of a source was one of the most difficult and also most important skills we were taught in university. Do I still get it wrong. Oh dear, yes. Did I learn how important it was? Oh yes. I especially learned to qualify what I wrote and to mark when a source could not perfectly be trusted, but the argument/point of view was interesting to discuss nonetheless. Why can't Wikipedia at least either remove false information once provided credible sources. Or at least somehow mark the relevant section/parts with a disclaimer so that readers are at least aware that something might be suspicious. Could it be gamed? Weaponized? Probably. Would it be helpful to readers? Maybe. But how is the current situation better?

ALittleLight 5y ago

There are problems with the approach of requiring third party reputable sources, for example the problems you are running into. There are associated costs, some published information will be wrong. There are also problems with the alternatives - e.g. primary sources providing motivated misinformation or volunteer editors being fooled by bad sources. It's easy to find problems with wikipedia's current model, but harder, I think, to argue that their model is the wrong choice.

sdoering 5y ago
Evaluating the quality of a source was one of the most difficult and also most important skills we were taught in university. Do I still get it wrong. Oh dear, yes. Did I learn how important it was? Oh yes. I especially learned to qualify what I wrote and to mark when a source could not perfectly be trusted, but the argument/point of view was interesting to discuss nonetheless. Why can't Wikipedia at least either remove false information once provided credible sources. Or at least somehow mark the relevant section/parts with a disclaimer so that readers are at least aware that something might be suspicious. Could it be gamed? Weaponized? Probably. Would it be helpful to readers? Maybe. But how is the current situation better?