3 ms·
To be fair, they did and do. Every page contains a link at the bottom to a "Disclaimer", the first two paragraphs of which read as follows: "Wikipedia is an on
by akolbe 4y ago
To be fair, they did and do. Every page contains a link at the bottom to a "Disclaimer", the first two paragraphs of which read as follows:
"Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.
"That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized, or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. Note that most other encyclopedias and reference works also have disclaimers."
Moreover, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_r...
It's just that people don't take any notice.
- nailer 4y agoI’ve think people aren’t seeing the disclaimer, rather than ignoring it. An on screen notification that appears for first time users or when text is selected are possible user interfaces that would ensure people understand.
- chris_wot 4y agoThat's a completely unreasonable idea. Are you also suggesting that Google should also have a prominent disclaimer that appears before they give results that their search results may not be accurate, or might be misleading?
- akolbe 4y agoI get where you're coming from but it's not really practical. (For a start, how to decide which user is a first-time user, if there even is such a thing today?) What I will say is that for a while the Wikimedia Foundation was trumpeting things like that somewhat flawed Britannica study and gave out PR messages along the lines of "See, we are reliable and as good as Britannica. Even doctors trust us." (Some journalists are still promoting that sentiment, and I think they are doing everyone a disservice. Example: https://twitter.com/Wikiland/status/1569781042764222464 https://twitter.com/Wikiland/status/1569781042764222464 Nobody should trust Wikipedia.) Around 2016 though the Wikimedia Foundation shifted emphasis and its CEO would say things like "We don't guarantee accuracy, do check the references cited in the article". That was the right thing to do. The rest is up to users now. I am all in favour of sharing stories of how things can go wrong when people trust Wikipedia blindly. Here are a few: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37523772 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37523772 https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-hoax/ https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-ho... https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-a-raccoon-became-an-aardvark https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-a-ra... https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/16/wikipedia_16_birthday_fails/ https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/16/wikipedia_16_birthday...
- nailer 4y agoCookies indexeddb and localstorage are all good proxies for the first time a user has used Wikipedia on a device.