4 ms·

Wikipedia agrees! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_recorder#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_recorder#Terminology

ignoramous 4y ago
nb: Wikipedia favours verifiability over truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wp:vnt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wp:vnt > Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our readers. We don't ask for their blind trust.
- wpietri 4y ago
  You sound like you have a problem with that, but I can't fathom what alternative course you'd rather them pursue.
  - ignoramous 4y ago
    It is just a note. I don't mean it to sound anything other than what Wikipedia itself states. I see a tonne of "Wikipedia agrees" but none of "Wikipedia is a living document" and it isn't its place to be a gospel of truth...
    - outworlder 4y ago
      Wikipedia is not and cannot, as per their own policies, be the primary source. 'Wikipedia agrees' is shorthand for 'the sources mentioned by this particular Wikipedia article agree'
      - loeg 4y ago
        I think it's shorthand for "the collective Wikipedia editors agree," which is not exactly the same thing as saying every claim is backed by any particular source.
        93po 4y ago
        I think more accurately, "the group of Wikipedia editors that managed to 'win' a debate agree".
    - travisjungroth 4y ago
      You see none of "Wikipedia is a living document"? I think people are pretty aware. You see a lot more cases of people quoting Wikipedia on a topic than talking about Wikipedia's trustworthiness because it adds a second dimension. It's [Wikipedia, Topic] vs. [Wikipedia]. I might look up 100 different things on Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia has all sorts of flaws is something I only needed to learn once.
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      The phrase "Wikipedia agrees" succinctly encodes the correct degree of confidence, as opposed to "it's true, see Wikipedia".
      - ignoramous 4y ago
        An argument can be made, I guess, if one leaves out the exclamation... "Wikipedia agrees!"
        andrewflnr 4y ago
        You're really reaching for nitpicks, there.

ignoramous 4y ago

nb: Wikipedia favours verifiability over truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wp:vnt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wp:vnt > Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our readers. We don't ask for their blind trust.

wpietri 4y ago
You sound like you have a problem with that, but I can't fathom what alternative course you'd rather them pursue.
- ignoramous 4y ago
  It is just a note. I don't mean it to sound anything other than what Wikipedia itself states. I see a tonne of "Wikipedia agrees" but none of "Wikipedia is a living document" and it isn't its place to be a gospel of truth...
  - outworlder 4y ago
    Wikipedia is not and cannot, as per their own policies, be the primary source. 'Wikipedia agrees' is shorthand for 'the sources mentioned by this particular Wikipedia article agree'
    - loeg 4y ago
      I think it's shorthand for "the collective Wikipedia editors agree," which is not exactly the same thing as saying every claim is backed by any particular source.
      - 93po 4y ago
        I think more accurately, "the group of Wikipedia editors that managed to 'win' a debate agree".
  - travisjungroth 4y ago
    You see none of "Wikipedia is a living document"? I think people are pretty aware. You see a lot more cases of people quoting Wikipedia on a topic than talking about Wikipedia's trustworthiness because it adds a second dimension. It's [Wikipedia, Topic] vs. [Wikipedia]. I might look up 100 different things on Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia has all sorts of flaws is something I only needed to learn once.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    The phrase "Wikipedia agrees" succinctly encodes the correct degree of confidence, as opposed to "it's true, see Wikipedia".
    - ignoramous 4y ago
      An argument can be made, I guess, if one leaves out the exclamation... "Wikipedia agrees!"
      - andrewflnr 4y ago
        You're really reaching for nitpicks, there.