3 ms·

I think this was your point (the last few sentences), but those 16 or so hoaxes cited are on absolutely obscure subjects .. A children's book character "Amelia

I think this was your point (the last few sentences), but those 16 or so hoaxes cited are on absolutely obscure subjects .. A children's book character "Amelia Bedelia" ? A subspecies of raccoon ?? .. So yes you're going to have articles that matter to 1 person per year get skewed, and that sucks .. and it's unfortunate for whatever poor soul wants to use those 1/yr-viewed articles that are misleading .. but I'm not sure that is a good argument against wikipedia. If however we were to go look up 'Mars' .. or 'electron' and find hoaxes there, then there would be a clear and obvious problem

akolbe 4y ago
How about "desert"? Wikipedia's "desert" article said for almost a year that the mean winter temperature in cold deserts, such as those found in Greenland and Antarctica, is typically between +4 and –2 °C. False info inserted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=prev&oldid=554164277 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=prev&... False info deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=603277511&oldid=603266925 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=60327... The desert article was classified as a "Good article" during that time and got about a million views. This is not an obscure article, nor was the article on Maurice Jarre at the time of his death, which is why the hoax instantly entered newspapers around the world. So I accept your point to a degree: many of the topics mentioned in that article are very obscure, but even a high-visibility, highly trafficked article can contain absolute balderdash mixed in with solid information and really good writing. I'm also not trying to make an argument against Wikipedia – I am a Wikipedian and I love Wikipedia, and use it daily, but it's important to be aware of its weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
- stall84 4y ago
  Yeah .. I know this one is getting buried, but yes.. there are inconsistencies and hoaxes, and just bad information on the articles... And yes that can be dangerous to a reader.. But you know I was just thinking earlier today reading a Wikipedia article and looking at some of the citations, and I thought that even with it's shortcomings, it has the potential to make readers, especially those that are curious, actually question what they're reading.. And I think when compared to like Britanica, thats a very positive aspect. Meaning.. I know that citations are all over academia and research areas, but they aren't in a lot of k-9 textbooks .. and maybe for someone who doesn't go on to higher education, they can potentially have that questioning-effect.

akolbe 4y ago

How about "desert"? Wikipedia's "desert" article said for almost a year that the mean winter temperature in cold deserts, such as those found in Greenland and Antarctica, is typically between +4 and –2 °C. False info inserted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=prev&oldid=554164277 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=prev&... False info deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=603277511&oldid=603266925 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=60327... The desert article was classified as a "Good article" during that time and got about a million views. This is not an obscure article, nor was the article on Maurice Jarre at the time of his death, which is why the hoax instantly entered newspapers around the world. So I accept your point to a degree: many of the topics mentioned in that article are very obscure, but even a high-visibility, highly trafficked article can contain absolute balderdash mixed in with solid information and really good writing. I'm also not trying to make an argument against Wikipedia – I am a Wikipedian and I love Wikipedia, and use it daily, but it's important to be aware of its weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

stall84 4y ago
Yeah .. I know this one is getting buried, but yes.. there are inconsistencies and hoaxes, and just bad information on the articles... And yes that can be dangerous to a reader.. But you know I was just thinking earlier today reading a Wikipedia article and looking at some of the citations, and I thought that even with it's shortcomings, it has the potential to make readers, especially those that are curious, actually question what they're reading.. And I think when compared to like Britanica, thats a very positive aspect. Meaning.. I know that citations are all over academia and research areas, but they aren't in a lot of k-9 textbooks .. and maybe for someone who doesn't go on to higher education, they can potentially have that questioning-effect.