3 ms·
Feel free, I'm not so optimistic about the mechanisms of Wikipedia. Almost all the wrong information in the article has a high-quality source (presumably repea
by bcoates 3y ago
Feel free, I'm not so optimistic about the mechanisms of Wikipedia.
Almost all the wrong information in the article has a high-quality source (presumably repeating either the Wikipedia article itself or some other random journo playing telephone about an event that happened in a then-relevant video game almost 20 years ago.) Or maybe the author pulled the ol' claim not found in source. I didn't check!
Serious answer: This is a job for Internet Historian https://www.youtube.com/c/InternetHistorian https://www.youtube.com/c/InternetHistorian who is... (double ironically? anti-hyperbolically? I'm not sure how to express surprise he actually lives up to the name) someone who does some quality research about dumb old internet stuff everyone misremembers and the news media got wrong the first time.
- shkkmo 3y agoEven if you don't edit the page itself, perhaps it's worth adding a comment on the talk page so that editors are aware of your veracity concerns the next time it is reviewed as the most recent review last year indicated no issues at all.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoYeah, sort of cringe to see that this is rated "Good Article" if it's that bad, factually. But Good (and Featured) Article ratings often have little to do with the factual content of the article. The reviewer checks a lot of cosmetic and stylistic features, and they largely check that every claim is cited to a source that can be considered generally reliable. They're not going to really check the actual quality, veracity, or reputation of those sources in regards to the specific topic. GA reviews can have such awful blind spots. I've seen many, many things slip by the reviewer when they were just eager to put another green dot on their profile.