3 ms·
> Wikipedia has such a list of sources it considers reliable and unreliable Russell suggests to check where Wikipedia ranks in that list. Well, the "credibili
by mdp2021 3y ago
> Wikipedia has such a list of sources it considers reliable and unreliable
Russell suggests to check where Wikipedia ranks in that list.
Well, the "credibility discrimination problem" is much easier on some sources (the "Rockstar ate my Hamster" headlines runners for example).
- jimjimjim 3y ago> "Rockstar ate my Hamster" I remember playing that on the amiga
- dredmorbius 3y agoWikipedia is not a primary source.
- piperswe 3y agoOr even a secondary source. It strives to be a tertiary source.
- dredmorbius 3y agoQuite. (I'd thought of noting that it's not secondary either, decided to keep it simple.) What Wikipedia is generally good at is in providing a synoptic presentation of a topic and identifying sources that document the points, facts, or arguments it presents. I'll often mine it for resources when doing a shallow dive on a topic. For deeper dives, I'll try to branch out further from both those and other points.
- mdp2021 3y ago> Wikipedia is not a primary source Yes, I played on the term "source", as "witness" vs "reporter", to stress in theory the human factor and in practice the paradox (inherent in the difficulties Wikipedia has to have in providing quality).
- lambdaone 3y agoWikipedia policies explicity forbid using Wikipedia itself as a source for Wikipedia articles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RSPRIMARY https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RSPRIMA...