4 ms·

Wikipedia being unreliable does not make the Daily Mail reliable though. In the US, the Mail has carved out a niche as a benign entertainment site - in the UK i

by jen20 5y ago

Wikipedia being unreliable does not make the Daily Mail reliable though. In the US, the Mail has carved out a niche as a benign entertainment site - in the UK it is a tedious, dangerous rag that is effectively OAN in print form.

alecco 5y ago
But it was used as an authority figure when their editors and government are quite controversial.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  On average it's as good or better than printed encyclopedias. We don't go around saying Britannica was a big book of lies but it unknowingly published many inaccuracies and urban legends. They did an honest effort, and we know what the results of that look like statistically these days.
tharne 5y ago
> Wikipedia being unreliable does not make the Daily Mail reliable though Perhaps, but Wikipedia's unreliability means that it is not in a position to meaningfully comment on reliability of other sites.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  Unreliability insofar as Wikipedia is concerned means it’s articles are of varying quality. That’s a fact somewhat inherent in its design. Why do you feel like that prevents their moderation teams from being arbiters of source quality? That page’s findings are not public-editable, for the record.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > Why do you feel like that prevents their moderation teams from being arbiters of source quality? The same reason I don't feel like Fox News or Breitbart provides a reliable view of the news, political bias. A lot has been written about wikipedia's political bias. I don't care to rehash the entire debate, but let's start with the fact that one of the original creators believes it has a problem with bias: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Is that the end-all be-all? Probably not, but it's reasonably concerning.

4 ms·

Wikipedia being unreliable does not make the Daily Mail reliable though. In the US, the Mail has carved out a niche as a benign entertainment site - in the UK i

by jen20 5y ago

alecco 5y ago
But it was used as an authority figure when their editors and government are quite controversial.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  On average it's as good or better than printed encyclopedias. We don't go around saying Britannica was a big book of lies but it unknowingly published many inaccuracies and urban legends. They did an honest effort, and we know what the results of that look like statistically these days.
tharne 5y ago
> Wikipedia being unreliable does not make the Daily Mail reliable though Perhaps, but Wikipedia's unreliability means that it is not in a position to meaningfully comment on reliability of other sites.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  Unreliability insofar as Wikipedia is concerned means it’s articles are of varying quality. That’s a fact somewhat inherent in its design. Why do you feel like that prevents their moderation teams from being arbiters of source quality? That page’s findings are not public-editable, for the record.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > Why do you feel like that prevents their moderation teams from being arbiters of source quality? The same reason I don't feel like Fox News or Breitbart provides a reliable view of the news, political bias. A lot has been written about wikipedia's political bias. I don't care to rehash the entire debate, but let's start with the fact that one of the original creators believes it has a problem with bias: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Is that the end-all be-all? Probably not, but it's reasonably concerning.