5 ms·
I'm not sure why people are so downhearted by this kind of thing. It's well known that anything controversial on Wikipedia is going to have a lot of edit warrin
by mlindner 4y ago
I'm not sure why people are so downhearted by this kind of thing. It's well known that anything controversial on Wikipedia is going to have a lot of edit warring and people trying to control a narrative. What Wikipedia is best at is non-controversial topics. And that has always been the case. Even for controversial topics it's honestly surprising how more or less correct the articles tend to be.
Wikipedia is not where you read up on the war crimes that may have or may not have been committed by some country or the views of a politician on immigration. Wikipedia is where you read up on Mars's atmosphere or how solar wind works.
- totalZero 4y agoWhen it comes to current events, I think the advantage that Wikipedia has over traditional encyclopedias is not authoritative but rather referential. With most articles (such as historical events or scientific breakthroughs), Wikipedia converges to a pretty authoritative treatment of the subject and can be more accurate than a singe-source encyclopedia. With current events articles, Wikipedia provides a starting point for further reading (including via the citation pointers) whereas a single-source encyclopedia may be out of date and completely devoid of content on the subject.
- mlindner 4y agoI agree. When you look at the sources used for controversial topics and dive down to the original primary sources (Wikipedia has rules against using primary sources for many subjects) you find that the actual information isn't what was reported.