4 ms·

> Wikipedia, the highest quality curated human-readable information repository I have some doubts about the quality of Wikipedia content. Everything that can

> Wikipedia, the highest quality curated human-readable information repository I have some doubts about the quality of Wikipedia content. Everything that can be politicised is politicised , everything that can be played in order for someone to advance his/her plans or point of view is played. Apart from bad faith, some article lack relevant info or contain errors due the volunteer nature of it.

4ggr0 3y ago
I know what you mean but if we consider that Wikipedia is the only such existing platform of that scope, it still technically is the one with the highest quality :)
windexh8er 3y ago
Being of the "highest quality", in this case, is comparative to the landscape we have available. With that said I believe it may be the highest quality open information repository. And if it's not - then what's better?
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  Your local university library and its ILL department.
  - windexh8er 3y ago
    Apples and oranges. I don't see a way to access my local university library for that data in the same way Wikipedia is available.
SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
I think it’s possible for Wikipedia to have certain flaws and for Wikipedia to be the highest quality curated human-readable information repository available.
smsm42 3y ago
Highest quality !== great quality Wikipedia suffers from massive bias and subjectivity issues, and also from accuracy problems. Yet, all the attempts to do better fizzled out so far, and most non-niche knowledge and information repositories have the same or worse issues.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  I think some subjects are just not fit to be learned by reading a biased encyclopedia article, such as political subjects. These subjects are better learned by instead reading forum debates, where several biased sides duke it out. A wiki article will just have the bias from one side. If we look back at history, many of the earliest written works were published in this way, as a philosophical debate between different fictional characters. However it seems increasingly difficult to find good online debate with several sides of an issue. People tend to silo themselves into their own bubbles, and denounce any platform who even dares to let an opponent speak his mind. I remember just a decade ago where you'd find all opinions on the spectrum on the same message boards. Now, people prefer to shelter themselves instead.

4ggr0 3y ago

I know what you mean but if we consider that Wikipedia is the only such existing platform of that scope, it still technically is the one with the highest quality :)

windexh8er 3y ago

Being of the "highest quality", in this case, is comparative to the landscape we have available. With that said I believe it may be the highest quality open information repository. And if it's not - then what's better?

dmvdoug 3y ago
Your local university library and its ILL department.
- windexh8er 3y ago
  Apples and oranges. I don't see a way to access my local university library for that data in the same way Wikipedia is available.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago

I think it’s possible for Wikipedia to have certain flaws and for Wikipedia to be the highest quality curated human-readable information repository available.

smsm42 3y ago

Highest quality !== great quality Wikipedia suffers from massive bias and subjectivity issues, and also from accuracy problems. Yet, all the attempts to do better fizzled out so far, and most non-niche knowledge and information repositories have the same or worse issues.

carlosjobim 3y ago
I think some subjects are just not fit to be learned by reading a biased encyclopedia article, such as political subjects. These subjects are better learned by instead reading forum debates, where several biased sides duke it out. A wiki article will just have the bias from one side. If we look back at history, many of the earliest written works were published in this way, as a philosophical debate between different fictional characters. However it seems increasingly difficult to find good online debate with several sides of an issue. People tend to silo themselves into their own bubbles, and denounce any platform who even dares to let an opponent speak his mind. I remember just a decade ago where you'd find all opinions on the spectrum on the same message boards. Now, people prefer to shelter themselves instead.