3 ms·
I don't really think it's Wikipedia's job to litigate the truthfulness of such claims -- it's about consensus, not about "truth." Assigning Wikipedia the job of
by alephaleph 5y ago
I don't really think it's Wikipedia's job to litigate the truthfulness of such claims -- it's about consensus, not about "truth." Assigning Wikipedia the job of deciding what is true and what is not beyond just summarizing mainstream consensus and Wikipedia ends up having to take many more political stances and the project could quickly break down.
- Jiro 5y agoIf Wikipedia wasn't about truth, nobody would use it. And if the consensus is particularly bad on a subject and the people editing the Wikipedia page are cooperative, they'll usually be able to find a rule intepretation that allows the consensus statements not to count (for insatnce, claiming that a generally reliable source isn't reliable for this particular statement).
- noxer 5y agoI didn't say its Wikipedia fault or that they did anything other than what they claim to do "pick up the stuff form other places". But wrong is still wrong and wrong is not useful. And even thou I know its wrong I have no way to fix it despite the idea of Wikipedia that anyone could correct everything. But I can't because I would need to find an article (from an accepted source) which opposes this exact claim. And even then if there are 5 sources for something that is wrong and 1 source pointing out that it is wrong, Wikipedia will at best report this as neutral as it gets which boils down to "The majority says [insert wrong statement here]". This IS neutral and in it self correct but the wrong statement is still there anyway. This is just the fundamental way how Wikipedia works.