Btw this is not an argument against Wikipedia in any way.
I think it’s perfectly valid to criticize it for accepting "blatantly false but “verifiable” " edits. I’m aware that the world is complex and perfection is idealistic, especially when it comes to topics where sources are inherently strongly biased, but publishing false information on a site with the format, style and reputation of Wikipedia is a real problem at a scale with far-reaching impact. To shift the onus of fact-checking onto the user is extremely inefficient and negligent.
I’m not even saying that there is a better solution, but it’s certainly an argument criticizing Wikipedia.
Okay, so you’re saying that although the editor made a mistake or was biased, but unlike a lot of other resources, they have to show their sources, so if you care to look, you can see if it is true?
Btw this is not an argument against Wikipedia in any way.
I think it’s perfectly valid to criticize it for accepting "blatantly false but “verifiable” " edits. I’m aware that the world is complex and perfection is idealistic, especially when it comes to topics where sources are inherently strongly biased, but publishing false information on a site with the format, style and reputation of Wikipedia is a real problem at a scale with far-reaching impact. To shift the onus of fact-checking onto the user is extremely inefficient and negligent.
I’m not even saying that there is a better solution, but it’s certainly an argument criticizing Wikipedia.
How is it not? Genuine question, I use wiki a lot, and generally trust the articles, though I have seen some inaccuracies before.
Because there are mistakes anywhere. Wikipedia gives you the tools to easily verify what you’re reading.
Okay, so you’re saying that although the editor made a mistake or was biased, but unlike a lot of other resources, they have to show their sources, so if you care to look, you can see if it is true?
If so, I think that makes sense.
Pretty much.
Theres also resources such as revision histories that add an extra layer of information that you can’t find in other information sources.
It’s not perfect, but it’s the best around.
I just meant that the intention behind my comment was not to attack Wikipedia in general.
Oh, you know, I didn’t even realize you replied to yourself.