• haloduder@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 hours ago

      This guy is a troll and he’s going to keep asking questions as long as people keep answering them.

      I’m just going to block him and move on; got no time to suffer fools like this any more.

    • NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date; its perceived unreliability as to its correctness is largely a misunderstanding that arose from misconceptions as to why one can’t (or shouldn’t, depending on case) cite it in academia. People think that it can’t be cited because of its unreliability but in reality it’s simply because it’s a third hand source; i.e. a resource.

      Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date

        How did you determine that?

        Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.

        True, but basically nobody does check that the sources are valid, and they often aren’t.

        • Crash@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          How do you know they often aren’t? I’m an academic and regularly use wikipedia to find citations for sources. I’ve have yet to come across any citations that were wrong.

          • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Because I see the things they’re getting from Wikipedia and I am them, and they admit they didn’t actually check the sources.

            I’ve have yet to come across any citations that were wrong.

            How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?

            • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              10 hours ago

              How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?

              Subject matter experts do still exist. They’re dying off, and it’s unclear how many more we intend to create. But we do still have some.

              • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                19
                ·
                12 hours ago

                I’ll click on them and then read them.

                And how will that allow you to know if they’re right or not?

                • Crash@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  Then I read them and use my critical thinking skills. For research I put trust in peer review articles by reputable journals.

                  But regardless,

                  Isn’t that a broader question as to what we consider truth and not something specific to wikipedia ?

        • andros_rex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          For anything that is not politically contentious, it’s very good. Even the politically contentious stuff tries to give the most “balanced”/“mainstream” interpretation usually.

          There are communities of people which hyperfixate on certain topics. Think dinosaurs and trains. If a serious Dino-head sees a mistake about the length of Diplodocus, they are going to drop everything and fix it immediately.

          I routinely check wiki sources - I’ve taught a lot of college kids that as a way to quickly find sources for papers. Most of the time, topics I know a lot about from my own educational background match what I see on wiki and cite the same kinds of sources I would use.

          It’s not perfect - there’s the infamous story of an American teenager writing all of Scots Wikipedia without knowing any Scots - but you have to respect the fact that there are a lot of people who are obsessed with certain topics and will watch their pet articles like a hawk.

    • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      13 hours ago

      NATOpedia is a great resource if you go in with an assumption of a pro-western bias, but a source of truth lmao.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        13 hours ago

        A lot of western liberals really do treat it like the Holy Scripture. Any intelligence agencies would just have to pay a few admins and higher some people to sculpt the list of “reliable sources” that Wikipedia uses and they can basically fully control what hundreds of millions of neoliberals believe.

        And they have.

          • nyctre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            People getting massacred near a square? Pfff, cia psyop. Ignore all the journalists that were there. They were all CIA plants and even if they weren’t, look, some even said it wasn’t actually a massacre. Watch this YouTube video, man… check his sources! The first one totally doesn’t say it was a massacre. Whatever, man, have a ban for calling us tankies! (Okay, that last bit was my bad, should’ve seen that one coming, they were just waiting for a reason, no matter how flimsy)

            They’re so braindead that they link videos whose own freaking sources contradict them. But yeah, it’s wikipedia sources that are wrong.