-36

Why can't Wikipedia be trusted anymore? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by leonardrua@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Academically it's not considered trustworthy because "anyone can make edits to it".

Functionally, it's one of the best sources of information there is, period.

It's not perfect - malicious actors can indeed make fraudulent entries; but I've only seen a real example of that once, and it was corrected super fast.

If ever in doubt, every page lists its sources, so you can always get your info directly from those... and back to academics: while it's generally taboo to cite Wikipedia directly, you can cite the same pages Wikipedia does as an easy work around.

[-] turtlepower@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

while it's generally taboo to cite Wikipedia directly, you can cite the same pages Wikipedia does as an easy work around.

Yup! Back in my college days, my English professor said we could use Wikipedia, but we had to trace sources all the way back to their origin, preferably a physical publication if possible. Meaning if Wikipedia cited a source that cited another source, you had to cite that source. That's just how academia works!

[-] ultratiem@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago

Sorry that’s not how academia works. Your prof may have given you that proviso but that’s not standard operating procedure for scientific study. Think about it, then we’d all be citing the same 10 papers forever.

[-] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago

I remember when I was doing a paper on Al Capone in elementary school and I was using Wikipedia. In the part about his youth there was this gem: "Like every teenager he liked to jerk off." Gave me a chuckle. Also, removing it was my first and only contribution to Wikipedia.

[-] Bloodwoodsrisen@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago

My favorite example of fake entries was the guy who just made Missouri slightly bigger on its page every time he got drunk

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 year ago

I don't know. I've never heard that.

[-] jesterraiin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Explain.

[-] norav@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Wikipedia is extremely functional and convenient, but there are instances where it can be inaccurate. I wouldn't recommend it for accademic research, better stick to first hand information, like books from researchers and historians. But for casual learning of words and concepts, there's no harm in using it.

Hope to be helpful.

[-] leonardrua@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I made this post because on Wikipedia, especially the Indonesian version, most of the articles don't have references. See also: Reliability of Wikipedia

[-] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

For reasons I describe here.

[-] beirut_bootleg@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Because people are becoming increasingly polarized, and more strongly hold on to their views with very little to no chance to consider they're wrong or are being lied to. Half of wikipedia is written by "them", and we cant't be sure if the other half is "ours" or is some corpo shill. Ours is the post-truth century, and Wikipedia the carefuly curated repository of human knowledge no longer fits us.

[-] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You know you can go through the logs and see all the changes made to a wiki article and they list all of their sources so you can check for yourself, right?

[-] beirut_bootleg@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Right!

[-] roanescence@mstdn.social 0 points 1 year ago

@leonardrua (1/n) it's not like that. U can trust Wikipedia. But if it is something really important then u should check the references it gives from research papers or some articles (which might be questioned or proved biased) so this is only the question of "Can you what ur given? Maybe something related to science... but not any political, religious or historical topics.....

[-] roanescence@mstdn.social -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@leonardrua (n/n) You have to research yourself with primary sources. Cus historical bias of universal knowledge base by economists, religious leaders, politicians, historians and even archeologists have destroyed universal views of great civilization and have glorified even the worst historical events and civilizations).

this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023

-36 points (15.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26777 readers

460 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.