3 ms·

Show HN: A site to send to people who whine about how unreliable Wikipedia is

5 points by TheresNoTime 4y ago

groffee 4y ago
Except it IS unreliable, even with citations. Wikipedia is straight up garbage. Just one very recent example: https://www.engadget.com/chinese-wikipedia-editor-fake-russian-medieval-history-122001604.html https://www.engadget.com/chinese-wikipedia-editor-fake-russi...
- uberman 4y ago
  I was just going to dig that link up as well.
  - groffee 4y ago
    Great minds!
- TheresNoTime 4y ago
  Maybe I need to add a section (in bold, flashing red text?) reiterating that you need to read the citations and not rely on the content? This recent example is awful, yes, but relied heavily on a Wikipedia project which has less strict referencing rules, and was consumed by people who didn't take the time to fact-check — we're about on par with Encyclopedia Britannica (ref: https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a)
chrisma0 4y ago
I really feel like the lack of well-structured citations is what's keeping many Wikipedia articles back. It's just not good enough to throw some paper reference (potentially behind a paywall) or a news article after a full paragraph of text. Often when editing a page, I am left wondering where exactly the previous editor has gotten a fact from. The Wiki markup even allows "quotes", i.e. short extracts of what exactly you're referring to, but I've yet to see anyone beside myself actually use it consistently. Having a structured list of references for a given topic in a Wikipedia article is incredibly helpful!
- TheresNoTime 4y ago
  Great points! In an ideal world, editors would note exactly where in the referenced work they found the information — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Identifying_parts_of_a_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Ident... has some guidance on how to do that :)
  - chrisma0 4y ago
    I mean, there is even stuff like linking to pages in PDF files... but I feel like it's another feature that's rarely used. Maybe, in an ideal world, I could imagine an editing experience with a split screen editor with the article text and the references open at the same time. Right now, it does feel like references are an afterthought in the editing workflow.
lvqz 4y ago
Wikipedia is deeply politically biased. Even reading the quotes, there is no guarantee of any truth as the admins quote many pseudo-experts who follow their ideology (often politically left). In short, Wikipedia is reliable only for topics that are far from politics, or that are supported by hard science.

5 points by TheresNoTime 4y ago

Except it IS unreliable, even with citations. Wikipedia is straight up garbage. Just one very recent example: https://www.engadget.com/chinese-wikipedia-editor-fake-russian-medieval-history-122001604.html https://www.engadget.com/chinese-wikipedia-editor-fake-russi...

uberman 4y ago
I was just going to dig that link up as well.
- groffee 4y ago
  Great minds!
TheresNoTime 4y ago
Maybe I need to add a section (in bold, flashing red text?) reiterating that you need to read the citations and not rely on the content? This recent example is awful, yes, but relied heavily on a Wikipedia project which has less strict referencing rules, and was consumed by people who didn't take the time to fact-check — we're about on par with Encyclopedia Britannica (ref: https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a)

chrisma0 4y ago

I really feel like the lack of well-structured citations is what's keeping many Wikipedia articles back. It's just not good enough to throw some paper reference (potentially behind a paywall) or a news article after a full paragraph of text. Often when editing a page, I am left wondering where exactly the previous editor has gotten a fact from. The Wiki markup even allows "quotes", i.e. short extracts of what exactly you're referring to, but I've yet to see anyone beside myself actually use it consistently. Having a structured list of references for a given topic in a Wikipedia article is incredibly helpful!

TheresNoTime 4y ago
Great points! In an ideal world, editors would note exactly where in the referenced work they found the information — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Identifying_parts_of_a_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Ident... has some guidance on how to do that :)
- chrisma0 4y ago
  I mean, there is even stuff like linking to pages in PDF files... but I feel like it's another feature that's rarely used. Maybe, in an ideal world, I could imagine an editing experience with a split screen editor with the article text and the references open at the same time. Right now, it does feel like references are an afterthought in the editing workflow.

lvqz 4y ago

Wikipedia is deeply politically biased. Even reading the quotes, there is no guarantee of any truth as the admins quote many pseudo-experts who follow their ideology (often politically left). In short, Wikipedia is reliable only for topics that are far from politics, or that are supported by hard science.