4 ms·

> And the best part is that I can trust this information to be neutral and factually correct. Relatively compared to other sources, sure, but not absolutely. W

by avarun 3y ago

> And the best part is that I can trust this information to be neutral and factually correct. Relatively compared to other sources, sure, but not absolutely. Wikipedia supereditors have their own biases that are obvious when reading articles on topics one has expert knowledge on.

berkes 3y ago
What other accessible resources are there that would give a higher neutrality, and factual correctness? (I include "accessible" deliberate, because while I like reading scientific papers, they are hard to read and often difficult to get or impossible to find)
- AlbertRosen 3y ago
  You can find most scientific papers on Sci-hub.
carschno 3y ago
Obviously, Wikipedia editors are human too. As opposed to most other resources, however, Wikipedia has the primary goal to provide high quality information. The contributors are not perfect, but they come astonishingly close to achieving that goal. Of course, you should never blindly trust any source, but in spite of the simple fact that every author has their own "biases", Wikipedia's general level of trustworthiness exceeds that of most other internet resources by far.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Wikipedia's general level of trustworthiness exceeds that of most other internet resources by far. This can be true of technical articles, especially covering popular subjects which are likely to be reviewed by enough people that errors get removed. Anything even tangentially related to politics is hopeless.
  - jl6 3y ago
    Not completely true. There are two different types of political articles: 1) Those where two opposing edit-warring factions have battled each other into a compromise/stalemate, resulting in a passably neutral article, and 2) Those where a single aligned group of edit-warriors have gained supremacy and have come to gatekeep the article against any opposing perspectives.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      It's worse than that. It affects the entire site. Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_(automobile_manufacturers) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_(automobile_manufact... > "GM, for instance, at one time picked up the entire cost of funding health insurance premiums of its employees, their survivors and GM retirees, as the US did not have a universal health care system." This is an article about automakers. The reason they picked up future healthcare costs is because they're future healthcare costs, which lets the bosses pay themselves bonuses from current profits and then the company can go bankrupt from unfunded future obligations after they've moved on to another company. The reason isn't that the US doesn't have a universal healthcare system, and even if it did, they could have provided supplemental insurance etc., and would still have wanted to because that too is a future cost instead of a present day one. The reason that qualifier is there is as a dig against the US healthcare system, in a way that aligns with particular partisans. The opposing partisan might have inserted something like "as the US has high healthcare costs as a result of regulatory dysfunction" though of course neutrality would have been to say neither of them because it's an article about automakers rather than healthcare systems. And yet it's there, and that kind of thing is all over the place.
      - avar 3y ago
        You're only reading that as a political jab because you're too entranced in American partisan politics. Americans are a minority among the portion of the world's population that can read English easily enough to consult the English language Wikipedia. When doing so, the rest us can use a brief reminder of what's ultimately a rather quaint aspect of the US: The fact that healthcare costs are a significant concern of employers. The source cited for the paragraph you're picking apart is an article that's contrasting US automakers and their international competition.
aierou 3y ago
Moreover, Wikipedia relies heavily on news articles as sources. It goes without saying that news outlets are not well known for holding neutral positions.

by avarun 3y ago

berkes 3y ago

What other accessible resources are there that would give a higher neutrality, and factual correctness? (I include "accessible" deliberate, because while I like reading scientific papers, they are hard to read and often difficult to get or impossible to find)

AlbertRosen 3y ago
You can find most scientific papers on Sci-hub.

carschno 3y ago

Obviously, Wikipedia editors are human too. As opposed to most other resources, however, Wikipedia has the primary goal to provide high quality information. The contributors are not perfect, but they come astonishingly close to achieving that goal. Of course, you should never blindly trust any source, but in spite of the simple fact that every author has their own "biases", Wikipedia's general level of trustworthiness exceeds that of most other internet resources by far.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Wikipedia's general level of trustworthiness exceeds that of most other internet resources by far. This can be true of technical articles, especially covering popular subjects which are likely to be reviewed by enough people that errors get removed. Anything even tangentially related to politics is hopeless.
- jl6 3y ago
  Not completely true. There are two different types of political articles: 1) Those where two opposing edit-warring factions have battled each other into a compromise/stalemate, resulting in a passably neutral article, and 2) Those where a single aligned group of edit-warriors have gained supremacy and have come to gatekeep the article against any opposing perspectives.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    It's worse than that. It affects the entire site. Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_(automobile_manufacturers) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_(automobile_manufact... > "GM, for instance, at one time picked up the entire cost of funding health insurance premiums of its employees, their survivors and GM retirees, as the US did not have a universal health care system." This is an article about automakers. The reason they picked up future healthcare costs is because they're future healthcare costs, which lets the bosses pay themselves bonuses from current profits and then the company can go bankrupt from unfunded future obligations after they've moved on to another company. The reason isn't that the US doesn't have a universal healthcare system, and even if it did, they could have provided supplemental insurance etc., and would still have wanted to because that too is a future cost instead of a present day one. The reason that qualifier is there is as a dig against the US healthcare system, in a way that aligns with particular partisans. The opposing partisan might have inserted something like "as the US has high healthcare costs as a result of regulatory dysfunction" though of course neutrality would have been to say neither of them because it's an article about automakers rather than healthcare systems. And yet it's there, and that kind of thing is all over the place.
    - avar 3y ago
      You're only reading that as a political jab because you're too entranced in American partisan politics. Americans are a minority among the portion of the world's population that can read English easily enough to consult the English language Wikipedia. When doing so, the rest us can use a brief reminder of what's ultimately a rather quaint aspect of the US: The fact that healthcare costs are a significant concern of employers. The source cited for the paragraph you're picking apart is an article that's contrasting US automakers and their international competition.

aierou 3y ago

Moreover, Wikipedia relies heavily on news articles as sources. It goes without saying that news outlets are not well known for holding neutral positions.