4 ms·

This is a large subject of course but the consensus I have always seen is that wikipedia is better because it has more eyes on each subject that can find errors

This is a large subject of course but the consensus I have always seen is that wikipedia is better because it has more eyes on each subject that can find errors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia >Opinions on accuracy were almost equal between the two encyclopedias (6 favoring Britannica, 7 favoring Wikipedia, 5 stating they were equal), and eleven of the eighteen (61%) found Wikipedia somewhat or substantially more complete, compared to seven of the eighteen (39%) for Britannica.

mmooss 2y ago
> the consensus I have always seen is that wikipedia is better because it has more eyes on each subject that can find errors. More eyes can help, but aren't necessary, they are not sufficient, and they have a downside or two * In the post-truth age of automated mass disinformation, majorities can be completely wrong (probably they could do that previously, also). Imagine trying to write about climate change or vaccines or trans health for certain populations; the many eyes often bully and abuse people into silence. * The nuance of an expert is often lost in editing by a mass of non-experts, who don't understand it enough to know what they are missing or to state it in other ways and contexts. * Look at sports: The masses sometimes strongly disagree with decisions and actions that are (nearly) provably correct. The coach, the expert, knows better. On the upside, Wikipedia has much greater breadth, but personally, I never know what I can trust.