3 ms·
I bet now you’d kill for a senior thesis based on my free, multilingual, publicly cited, text-based articles, motherfucker Yeeeeeeeeah.... Not if it's written
by antisol 1y ago
I bet now you’d kill for a senior thesis based on my free, multilingual, publicly cited, text-based articles, motherfucker
Yeeeeeeeeah.... Not if it's written in or about the Scots language.
(see: https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/scots_wikipedia_fake/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/scots_wikipedia_fake/ )
(see also: that time the Scottish governmment used Scots wikipedia as a source)
- thepuppet33r 1y agoWasn't that an edge case, though? Not even done by a bad actor, just someone misguided? And it was discovered and quickly corrected, unlike what would happen on something owned by a massive FAANG-style corp. I have been schooled many times on the failures of Wikipedia, why I shouldn't waste my time editing it, how the editors are toxic; but ultimately, I can't help but buy into the idea of a crowdsourced, centrally administrated, store of knowledge. I wouldn't base critical decisions off of Wikipedia alone, but it sure helps me understand things in general.
- antisol 1y ago> Not even done by a bad actor, just someone misguided? I'm not sure how the actor's good intentions makes the information on the wiki accurate? > quickly corrected As others have pointed out, it was certainly not "quickly" corrected. And to clarify on "corrected", about half the content on that wiki was simply deleted. A bunch of actual useful edits were definitely removed. And that didn't happen before the Scottish government used it as a source.
- philipwhiuk 1y ago> And it was discovered and quickly corrected It was definitely not quickly corrected. It was going on for years.
- IAmBroom 1y agoYou've cherrypicked 0.0006% of Wikipedia... that has been corrected.
- antisol 1y agoOr another way of saying it would be that I've "cherrypicked" literally the majority of Scots wikipedia.