4 ms·
> Neither are trustworthy. Since we’ve all forgotten media literacy, what makes Wikipedia trustworthy is that sources are cited and you can inspect those sourc
by dangus 4mo ago
> Neither are trustworthy.
Since we’ve all forgotten media literacy, what makes Wikipedia trustworthy is that sources are cited and you can inspect those sources yourself to make a judgement call on the topic at hand.
There was never any such thing as blind trust. We learned in grade school how to evaluate sources and what types of sources are out there (primary and secondary sources, etc).
There is some level of trust in being open, transparent, and without a profit motive. But we recognize as educated people that truth is a matter of perspective, and we can build a complete picture by compiling different perspectives.
But then people like you roll in tossing casual accusations around and I guess your intention is to steer people to far less trustworthy sources than Wikipedia.
- s_dev 4mo agoThe user isn't arguing in good faith here is one of his other comments >Wikipedia could shut down permanently tomorrow and the world will be a better place. Wikipedia is a vital resource for the internet and one of humanities supreme achievements. He can certainly have whatever opinion he likes but when has opinions like this he can't be trusted.
- NordStreamYacht 4mo agoI use eb.com and so should you. So when the cofounder of Wikipedia calls it compromised, is he also arguing in bad faith?
- dangus 4mo agoI have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe some context would help. Is this a cofounder who currently works there? I don’t think this is directly relevant.
- NordStreamYacht 4mo agoLook up Larry Sanger but not on Wikipedia.
- red-iron-pine 4mo agogood faith arguments, on HN? bro you know what this site is for, right?
- SanjayMehta 4mo agoIf the argument doesn't fit the majority narrative then it's not in good faith. Aka democracy in action. I've linked in the past to a paper which shows how wikipedos use circular arguments to push a narrative.
- SanjayMehta 4mo agoYeah, I have zero good faith towards Wikipedia and the wikipedos who run it. https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/ https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/
- SanjayMehta 4mo ago[flagged]
- thunderfork 4mo agoWikipedia doesn't "ban viewpoints". I'm guessing you're referring to their considering some sources as more reliable than others?
- SanjayMehta 4mo agoYes. Exactly. They have a list of sources which cannot be referenced directly or indirectly. That is enough to discredit them completely.
- Schiendelman 4mo agoWhat source would you include that they don't allow referencing?
- SanjayMehta 4mo agoTry posting any URL from the Daily Mail. See what happens.
- Schiendelman 4mo agoSo you would source from Daily Mail?
- SanjayMehta 4mo agoMaybe. I'm for viewing all sides of every argument and coming to my own conclusions. Who are these Wikipedo censors? Not one of them has the circular objects between their legs to stand behind their Orwellian editorship.
- 4mo ago