4 ms·

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 li

• 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.