3 ms·

Wikipedia as an encyclopedia project is a complete failure. It fails to deliver a consistent representatiuon of reality. The basic premise that if there is an o

Wikipedia as an encyclopedia project is a complete failure. It fails to deliver a consistent representatiuon of reality. The basic premise that if there is an open discussion, inconsistencies can eventually be resolved, is false. Not to mention it's openness gives all sorts of attackers an easy target.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
IKantRead 3y ago
> It fails to deliver a consistent representatiuon of reality. I'm curious by what precisely you mean by this. Last I checked, reality itself has problems consistently representing itself.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  [flagged]
- klntsky 3y ago
  I mean articles not contradicting each other. > reality itself has problems consistently representing itself In this case neutral statements could be used.
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    I don't think eliminating contradictions matters that much. Wikipedia is a good starting point for reading up on topics that matter to you and then doing your own research, and a nice website to kill a few hours reading about topics that don't. Even with contradictions it works fine for both use cases. It isn't a good encyclopedia, I agree – but what is?
mattigames 3y ago
The "historical Jesus" one is the funniest entry to me, it conveniently ommits who his "historical father" is, and pretends multiple sources are talking about the same person even if they don't agree in the most basic details, imagine that with any other Wikipedia bigraphic entry: "The Hitler I'm talking about commited no genocide and didn't believe in eugenics, but let's all pretend we are still talking about the same person, for the sake of peace among the discussers".
- kitchi 3y ago
  I'm quite puzzled by this comment. A quick glance through the article and there seem to be several references to what appear to be serious academic work. So is the issue with the work of the academics? Or the way Wikipedia has put together the article? I'm not a historian by any definition of the word and in quite curious about this.
  - klntsky 3y ago
    The funny is in how the religious overtone of the subject collides with the usual science-ish manner of wikipedia editors.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

IKantRead 3y ago

> It fails to deliver a consistent representatiuon of reality. I'm curious by what precisely you mean by this. Last I checked, reality itself has problems consistently representing itself.

mrguyorama 3y ago
[flagged]
klntsky 3y ago
I mean articles not contradicting each other. > reality itself has problems consistently representing itself In this case neutral statements could be used.
- notpushkin 3y ago
  I don't think eliminating contradictions matters that much. Wikipedia is a good starting point for reading up on topics that matter to you and then doing your own research, and a nice website to kill a few hours reading about topics that don't. Even with contradictions it works fine for both use cases. It isn't a good encyclopedia, I agree – but what is?

mattigames 3y ago

The "historical Jesus" one is the funniest entry to me, it conveniently ommits who his "historical father" is, and pretends multiple sources are talking about the same person even if they don't agree in the most basic details, imagine that with any other Wikipedia bigraphic entry: "The Hitler I'm talking about commited no genocide and didn't believe in eugenics, but let's all pretend we are still talking about the same person, for the sake of peace among the discussers".

kitchi 3y ago
I'm quite puzzled by this comment. A quick glance through the article and there seem to be several references to what appear to be serious academic work. So is the issue with the work of the academics? Or the way Wikipedia has put together the article? I'm not a historian by any definition of the word and in quite curious about this.
- klntsky 3y ago
  The funny is in how the religious overtone of the subject collides with the usual science-ish manner of wikipedia editors.