7 ms·

Wikipedia is not considered reliable either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it https://en.wikip

• nostromo 4y ago
  IMDB is just as verifiable as Wikipedia. It cites its sources. In fact, all it is a list of citations.
• chx 4y ago
  Except you can use obscure dead tree books as sources and no one will take the effort to check whether the book indeed says so. Use a book obscure enough -- especially in a non-English language -- and it becomes almost impossible to execute said check.
  • johannes1234321 4y ago
    It depend so. The amount of trust I want to give. By citing an obscure book I can judge the fact "hm, that book sounds obscure, why isn't there some other source?" and then decide how much weight I give to it. And if I don't have the book at hand I can identify the person who added the citation and can see what other edits they did to judge their domain knowledge.
    • chx 4y ago
      No one does this. And Wikipedia myths spread to other media until it's hard to pinpoint where it started.
      • stordoff 4y ago
        Sometimes referred to as citogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting#Circular_reporting_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting#Circular_re... There is a list of known incidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...
      • 6510 4y ago
        But in case they do you can ask your other well established sleeper account for a book reference then reply a few days later with a: This is what I found posting. Then when asked you can point to yourself and say I've asked him. Do a conversation with yourself weighting how a book is hard to validate vs how important the information is to the article.
• throwawayaug8 4y ago
  According to Wikipedia Elon Musk is the founder of Tesla. That's how reliable Wikipedia is
  • pvorb 4y ago
    Where did you read that? I highly doubt that such a change will get approved.
  • marak830 4y ago
    "The company was incorporated as Tesla Motors, Inc. on July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning.[13]" No, it doesn't.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • IncRnd 4y ago
      "It was started in 2003 by Martin Eberhard, Dylan Stott, and Elon Musk (who also co-founded PayPal and SpaceX and is the CEO of SpaceX)." [1] [1] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla%2c_Inc%2e https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla%2c_Inc%2e
      • debesyla 4y ago
        1) 'simple' wikipedia isn't 'main' wikipedia - same as any other language wikipedias. 2) You can edit and fix mistakes if you see that as a mistake.
        • IncRnd 4y ago
          1) Nobody said anything about qualifying what wikipedia is. However, this is wikipedia, as one can see by looking at the domain in the url, wikipedia.org. Even so, there are many pages that cover tesla at wikipedia.org. Besides, if you just google for, "What companies has Elon Musk founded?" without quotes you will get a google listing of companies founded by Elon Musk. The very first of those is Tesla! 2) That was the point of the parent's comment! There are many pages at wikipedia that contain conflicting information.
• _trampeltier 4y ago
  A bit of topic. Does anyone know, why the english Wikipedia site about the JFK movie does not talk about what was fiction, what was true in the movie and what is unknow? On the german page about the movie, they have a lot about it. I understand there are differences in languages. But in this case, in english, the most important information is missing. So it's just a movie, all fiction?!? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_(film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_(film)
  • leephillips 4y ago
    > So it's just a movie, all fiction?!? Well, yes.
    • mitchdoogle 4y ago
      I've seen several movies based on real events that have a section about the level of similarity to actual events
      • _trampeltier 4y ago
        The german site has it too. That's why I was wondering.
      • jwilk 4y ago
        Examples off the top of my head: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(2012_film)#Historical_inaccuracies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(2012_film)#Historical_in... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Years_a_Slave_(film)#Historical_accuracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Years_a_Slave_(film)#Histor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(film)#Historical_accuracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(film)#Historical_ac...
  • 3np 4y ago
    In general you can sometimes get insight from the "Talk" section for these kinds of questions. In this case, there was a "historical inaccuracies" section which was removed due to sourcing concerns. Not sure how well it holds up to what is (/was was the time) up on the German one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JFK_(film)/Archive_1#Questionable_Good_Article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JFK_(film)/Archive_1#Qu... Sometimes it can be up to chance or culture, sometimes editorial differences. EDIT: Come to think of it, in this case maybe the German Wikipedia just has misproportionate coverage and activity for its speaker-base (this would certainly fit with my preconception)? I recall reacting to pages on topics from other countries where I'd be surprised to find it covered in German and not the native language,