5 ms·

I’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 ar

by nailer 4y ago

I’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 ago
That'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?
- nailer 4y ago
  Why and no.
  - chris_wot 4y ago
    So why is Google any different to Wikipedia?
    - nailer 4y ago
      People don’t cite Google.
      - chris_wot 4y ago
        Kids don’t cite Wikipedia either, because they know they will be marked down. Just because you don’t cite something doesn’t mean you don’t regularly use it.
akolbe 4y ago
I 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 ago
  Cookies indexeddb and localstorage are all good proxies for the first time a user has used Wikipedia on a device.

by nailer 4y ago

chris_wot 4y ago

That'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?

nailer 4y ago
Why and no.
- chris_wot 4y ago
  So why is Google any different to Wikipedia?
  - nailer 4y ago
    People don’t cite Google.
    - chris_wot 4y ago
      Kids don’t cite Wikipedia either, because they know they will be marked down. Just because you don’t cite something doesn’t mean you don’t regularly use it.

akolbe 4y ago

I 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 ago
Cookies indexeddb and localstorage are all good proxies for the first time a user has used Wikipedia on a device.