5 ms·

Wasn'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

Wasn'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 11mo 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 11mo ago
> And it was discovered and quickly corrected It was definitely not quickly corrected. It was going on for years.