There’s a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia too, of many different kinds.
Some smaller pages exists purely for someone’s PR. I’ve seen blatantly false (but “verifiable”) stuff too but the most common thing is to have pages that are just creative with the truth.
Also sometimes I’ll notice an article make multiple different claims that all point to the same source and then check the source and realize it is not a valid source for all of those claims, just some.
And also there’s stuff that gets flagged as verified based on extrapolation of data from a combination of sources. For example: one source says “John Doe facing 1 billion dollars fines if found guilty” and another source says “John Doe was found guilty”, then the article says “John Doe fined 1 billion dollars after being found guilty” as verified, then you go search the web and find no mention of any fines actually being issued following the verdict.
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?
It’s not just smaller pages. Brands and people pay for PR people to groom their page to present in a good light. Sure, it includes the information but it is groomed to be “neutral” and minimise the negative perception. Look at Musk’s page as an example.
But shouldnt fact be neutral? For example: “the holocaust was evil and killed countless innocent civilians” or “the holocaust resulted in (actual estimate) civilian deaths” The former is emotional and the latter is factual, but both highlight the perpetrated evil against the innocent.
But it’s also possible to just quietly omit information.
The holocaust resulted in millions of deaths
Sounds bad
the holocaust resulted in the death of approximately six million Jews and a further eight to ten million people from other groups such as Russian POW, Slav, Roma, Sinti, and homosexuals.
I frequently check Wikipedia citations, just to be disappointed. Wiki sources can be a great shortcut to good citations, but often I realise much of an article’s content is built out of the soggiest cardboard.
There’s a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia too, of many different kinds. Some smaller pages exists purely for someone’s PR. I’ve seen blatantly false (but “verifiable”) stuff too but the most common thing is to have pages that are just creative with the truth.
Also sometimes I’ll notice an article make multiple different claims that all point to the same source and then check the source and realize it is not a valid source for all of those claims, just some.
And also there’s stuff that gets flagged as verified based on extrapolation of data from a combination of sources. For example: one source says “John Doe facing 1 billion dollars fines if found guilty” and another source says “John Doe was found guilty”, then the article says “John Doe fined 1 billion dollars after being found guilty” as verified, then you go search the web and find no mention of any fines actually being issued following the verdict.
Btw this is not an argument against Wikipedia in any way.
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.
It’s not just smaller pages. Brands and people pay for PR people to groom their page to present in a good light. Sure, it includes the information but it is groomed to be “neutral” and minimise the negative perception. Look at Musk’s page as an example.
But shouldnt fact be neutral? For example: “the holocaust was evil and killed countless innocent civilians” or “the holocaust resulted in (actual estimate) civilian deaths” The former is emotional and the latter is factual, but both highlight the perpetrated evil against the innocent.
Maybe I’m oversimplifying your point.
Yes.
But it’s also possible to just quietly omit information.
Sounds bad
Puts figures to how bad it was.
Imagine if western powers had carved off a chunk of the middle east and then said “and this spot is just for the gays”.
I have a feeling that country would be fabulous
“And we shall call this land upon which the lord hath bestow upon us, South Beach. Or maybe the Mission. Idk, depends on the mood we’re in”
To give some credit, I don’t think that 30% of the global population of the gays or Roma or Slavs was killed by the Nazis. But, still, wow.
Watch this bs:
Feels gross to read, right?
I frequently check Wikipedia citations, just to be disappointed. Wiki sources can be a great shortcut to good citations, but often I realise much of an article’s content is built out of the soggiest cardboard.