4 ms·

What have they posted that was wrong?

• ceejayoz 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visegr%C3%A1d_24#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visegr%C3%A1d_24#Content details a number of cases.
  • mistermann 2y ago
    It would be useful to have a site that logs all plausible issues of this kind, at arm's length from Wikipedia editors. Kind of a "Who watches the watchers?" type of thing.
    • squigz 2y ago
      Why would that not be prone to the same issue you think Wikipedia faces?
      • mistermann 2y ago
        Superior methodology (transcending numerous cultural / psychological / cognitive norms and obligations) is how I would go about it. For example: banning the conflation of opinion and fact, like what's going on (and always goes on) in this thread, a behavior that is protected (doing otherwise "is not what this site is for"). If an imperfection is noted: log it, investigate, improve. Rinse, repeat. Also: best prepare one's will, life insurance, etc before undertaking such a project.
      • zelphirkalt 2y ago
        Maybe it would not, but putting all your eggs in one basket has never been a good idea either.
        • squigz 2y ago
          I don't think that's what we're doing, considering Wikipedia points to other 'baskets' as sources.
    • LikesPwsh 2y ago
      If that list became popular it would be weaponised by military intelligence.
  • wslh 2y ago
    [flagged]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]