The more I know about a subject the worse Wikipedia articles tend to be. Some are well done and I occasionally cite them. However, Wikipedia is overwhelming poor in quality and has become indispensable to people in an age where depth of knowledge is a dying quality. Regurgitating a Wikipedia article is, in Hayek’s ringing phrase, the pretense of knowledge.
In all fairness, I’ve found it pretty good for biochemical matters.
The problem is anyone can edit it. Too add or delete content.
“The problem is anyone can edit it. Too add or delete content.”
Even copyright material?
I’ll have to do some digging, this applies to Americans and Brits, but it is generally overlooked (nod and wink) for them to “edit” our stuff and vice versa.
Now I will go try to dig it up.
It seemed like something that could be abused and go wrong (think was in interview w intelligence officer)
Also thought, we’ll heck, I guess the war ain’t over. Also thought maybe our disinformation Nina Poppins wasn’t in on joke (but I really think they are insane and it doesn’t matter) /ramble off.
Yeah, I never use Wiki and kick myself for getting rid of encyclopedias. Use to trust school sites, edu but not anymore.
I have (in the past) found Wikipedia good for engineering questions and it can still be good but you’ve got to be careful. Lately engineering topics have been dumbed down and may not be accurate or clear; probably for “Diversity Equity & Inclusion” purposes.
I mostly use Eng-tips forums now.
It seems engineers are mostly no longer running the engineering pages of Wikipedia, and I suspect they/we don’t want to. This brings concerns about misinformation to the general public.
(I should say Eng-tips and many other sources, including some very good manufacturer sources. I usually google the question and sift through all the bs, and I will go 10 pages or more if necessary.
Wikipedia can no longer be trusted. Given the chance Leftists destroy everything, like termites.)
Mary- according to Wikipedia’s own page anything before 1927 is considered in the public domain regardless of its copyright status. I understand that copyrighted works are only protected in the countries they are legally protected in. Wikipedia operates under US copyright laws so I’m assuming anything copyrighted outside US couldn’t be policed. Having said this if a complaint is made to Wikipedia, then it’s up to them to decide to remove it or not. Lastly, you can’t copyright facts, and Wikipedia is meant to be an automated encyclopaedia of “facts”. “Meant to” anyway.
Teachers generally don’t allow primary students to cite Wikipedia in their assignments because it’s commonly known to not always be accurate. But the internet in general is a hard thing to police when it comes to citing sources. And it’s constantly changing. When my eldest started doing assignments she had to use half hard copy sources. Now my youngest can’t use just websites.
*my youngest can just use website.
If it really were the case that wikipedia could be edited by anyone it would be unreliable, but not as bad as it is. The truth is that any “controversial” article will get locked down by a cabal of editors who only allow a certain narrative to gain traction. They will often (but not always) defend their decisions through arguments about “notability” and “reliable sources.” But these concepts are applied inconsistently at best, especially when it comes to sources. When it fits the narrative any random news article works (even in cases where the article cites wikipedia as its source.) If it is against the narrative no amount of scholarly articles will be sufficient.
You can still get good articles on wikipedia, but only in certain niches. These tend to be highly technical articles (like the aforementioned engineering problems or mathematical definitions.) Those are of too little general interest for them to be vandalized or overwritten by know-nothing know-it-alls, and they don’t have a political component and as such do not attract a decisions from higher editors.
But when it comes to politics, history, culture, etc. it is very rare to find a good article. The best you will find are things with some correct information, but then a paragraph of glaring bias, or some good information but huge obvious omissions.
I pretty much only use it for plot synopsis of movies/TV and as a jump point to dive further into stuff. Like “who was that ancient king who…” use Wikipedia to get the name then off to more solid sources.
Tim Pool REALLY hates the site.
https://youtu.be/El63TQkBO7U
[…] from The American Catholic: Wikipedia Is Trash – Donald R. McClarey, […]