4 ms·

Anyone who says you shouldn't rely on wikipedia because it's inaccurate is confused about what wikipedia is, and what encyclopedias are supposed to be used for.

by epgui 4y ago

Anyone who says you shouldn't rely on wikipedia because it's inaccurate is confused about what wikipedia is, and what encyclopedias are supposed to be used for. The lesson teachers should have been teaching was that you shouldn't cite the thing in a scholarly work as if it was a primary (or even secondary) source. Just like you shouldn't cite the Encyclopedia Britannica, or any other encyclopedia, in a paper.

somenameforme 4y ago
You seem to be falsely equating the Wiki model, with the Encyclopedia model. Encyclopedias could be, and regularly were, referenced as factual and primary sources. The reason is that encyclopedias in the past were predominately written by subject matter experts. As an example writers for Britannica included no less than Milton Friedman, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, and even Leon Trotsky to go in a different direction. [1] Wikipedia, by contrast, is written by whoever can engage in the Wiki-world equivalent of getting the most likes. And its writers are whoever wins what is effectively a glorified Reddit-like upvote system. Ostensibly this is balanced against the fact that editors cannot themselves work as primary sources on Wikipedia: Einstein himself would not be allowed to write about physics on Wikipedia, but this also means Joe Editor also can't write as a primary source. Instead everything is exclusively sourced from other sites. The problem is that this is where bias comes into play. If Joe Editor wants to publish that 2+2=5 in the mathematics section and he can find an article on The Verge claiming so, then he can do so. If somebody wants to correct him, and he doesn't want to change, then edit wars begin. And in these cases, the truth itself is secondary to more normal aspects of social media. This is where Wikipedia fails. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica#Contributors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica#C...
- carschno 4y ago
  I don't deny that intentional or unintentional misinformation occurs on Wikipedia. However, that does not qualify as an argument against Wikipedia as a reliable source as a whole, in particular in comparison to most other sources, including many TV channels, newspapers and tabloids. In fact, many if not most Wikipedia pages are written by subject matter experts too (to be defined weet that that means). In spite of occasional quality concerns, Wikipedia is one of the most trustworthy sources on the internet. That does not mean you should blindly believe everything you read there, as for any other source. Also, as stated by others, it is not a scholarly source nor a scientific publication.
- elsjaako 4y ago
  I don't really disagree but I want to note that most of Wikipedia hasn't been subject to an edit war. So most of Wikipedia isn't decided by Wikipedia's ritual, but just by whoever put in the effort to write it.
  - hobofan 4y ago
    > just by whoever put in the effort to write it Which is about as bad. This can directly translate to "the only person that put effort into writing it, no matter how competent they are in the subject".
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  I'll just address just one of your points for now: For as long as possible people held off any kind of voting, instead using a rough consensus system. This was chosen because voting would lead to too much inaccuracy. I know about this because at one point I researched how and why the system was working, and helped write some of the documentation on it. My question to you is where, when, and/or why you think the system looks like reddit voting, as you claim? I would be rather sad if it has broken down of late. note 1: Ironically, the No Original Research [3] rule came about to counter claims of unreliability. I doagree with you that -while it does set a lower limit on reliability- it also sets an upper limit. Besides your objections, it also removes a channel for establishing priority [1], and makes it harder for experts to contribute from memory. [2]. note 2: Wikipedia actually incorporates the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica as the basis for a number of articles [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities#Ability_to_establish_priority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities#Improving_an_article_from_memory_or_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_Eleventh_Edition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_E...
- epgui 4y ago
  I’m a wikipedia contributor (so I’m quite familiar with how wikipedia works), and I wasn’t falsely equating the wiki model, I just wasn’t talking about it.
kshacker 4y ago
It is as they say "perfect being the enemy of good". There are just too many people who create this perception because of their one off bad experience. Given the Wikipedia model of open edits, they should go fix it rather than create a perception of it being bad. Of course edit may not be possible in contentious subjects but most of us know that.

by epgui 4y ago

somenameforme 4y ago

You seem to be falsely equating the Wiki model, with the Encyclopedia model. Encyclopedias could be, and regularly were, referenced as factual and primary sources. The reason is that encyclopedias in the past were predominately written by subject matter experts. As an example writers for Britannica included no less than Milton Friedman, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, and even Leon Trotsky to go in a different direction. [1] Wikipedia, by contrast, is written by whoever can engage in the Wiki-world equivalent of getting the most likes. And its writers are whoever wins what is effectively a glorified Reddit-like upvote system. Ostensibly this is balanced against the fact that editors cannot themselves work as primary sources on Wikipedia: Einstein himself would not be allowed to write about physics on Wikipedia, but this also means Joe Editor also can't write as a primary source. Instead everything is exclusively sourced from other sites. The problem is that this is where bias comes into play. If Joe Editor wants to publish that 2+2=5 in the mathematics section and he can find an article on The Verge claiming so, then he can do so. If somebody wants to correct him, and he doesn't want to change, then edit wars begin. And in these cases, the truth itself is secondary to more normal aspects of social media. This is where Wikipedia fails. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica#Contributors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica#C...

carschno 4y ago
I don't deny that intentional or unintentional misinformation occurs on Wikipedia. However, that does not qualify as an argument against Wikipedia as a reliable source as a whole, in particular in comparison to most other sources, including many TV channels, newspapers and tabloids. In fact, many if not most Wikipedia pages are written by subject matter experts too (to be defined weet that that means). In spite of occasional quality concerns, Wikipedia is one of the most trustworthy sources on the internet. That does not mean you should blindly believe everything you read there, as for any other source. Also, as stated by others, it is not a scholarly source nor a scientific publication.
elsjaako 4y ago
I don't really disagree but I want to note that most of Wikipedia hasn't been subject to an edit war. So most of Wikipedia isn't decided by Wikipedia's ritual, but just by whoever put in the effort to write it.
- hobofan 4y ago
  > just by whoever put in the effort to write it Which is about as bad. This can directly translate to "the only person that put effort into writing it, no matter how competent they are in the subject".
Kim_Bruning 4y ago
I'll just address just one of your points for now: For as long as possible people held off any kind of voting, instead using a rough consensus system. This was chosen because voting would lead to too much inaccuracy. I know about this because at one point I researched how and why the system was working, and helped write some of the documentation on it. My question to you is where, when, and/or why you think the system looks like reddit voting, as you claim? I would be rather sad if it has broken down of late. note 1: Ironically, the No Original Research [3] rule came about to counter claims of unreliability. I doagree with you that -while it does set a lower limit on reliability- it also sets an upper limit. Besides your objections, it also removes a channel for establishing priority [1], and makes it harder for experts to contribute from memory. [2]. note 2: Wikipedia actually incorporates the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica as the basis for a number of articles [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities#Ability_to_establish_priority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities#Improving_an_article_from_memory_or_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_Eleventh_Edition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_E...
epgui 4y ago
I’m a wikipedia contributor (so I’m quite familiar with how wikipedia works), and I wasn’t falsely equating the wiki model, I just wasn’t talking about it.

kshacker 4y ago

It is as they say "perfect being the enemy of good". There are just too many people who create this perception because of their one off bad experience. Given the Wikipedia model of open edits, they should go fix it rather than create a perception of it being bad. Of course edit may not be possible in contentious subjects but most of us know that.