I am a self proclaimed wiki-phile, I always donated when I could. It was kind of like going to the library without the fresh book smell.
I am a self proclaimed wiki-phile, I always donated when I could. It was kind of like going to the library without the fresh book smell.
There is nothing ridiculous about it, they even have specific terms for countless abuses by “senior editors”, e.g. wikilawyer, content authoritharian you can look it up. Their policy was/is “Verifiability, not truth”. As for evidence, there is plenty:
Tap for spoiler
Well, you were going to dismiss whatever I will link you, so there were no point in providing links
The first link is paywalled, I read the other two. Seems like those posts are evidence that there are assholes editing twitter, which I’d agree is true even without links. What I disagreed with is the idea it’s “captured” by bad actors.
I do think it’s legitimate to have a concern about people paid to edit wikipedia by malicious organizations. I don’t think Elon Musk is legitimately concerned about that; he doesn’t want an information source to exist that he can’t control.
But giving these specific examples is different than giving evidence that Wikipedia on some larger scale is no longer useful or reliable. And keep in mind here “reliable” doesn’t mean “never wrong.” I remember in school being taught that Wikipedia (like the encyclopedias that came before it) is just your first stop when learning about a subject. It’s a general overview, but to become an expert a person needs to look at additional materials.
I’ve got proof that raw milk is much healthier than milk that’s been heated for just a little bit. But, sigh, unfortunately you won’t believe any article I link you. Your mind is darkened and cannot perceive my ideas. A shame.
For real though, why on god’s green earth would you link the philip roth complaint? Encyclopedias are not a primary source for anything, you don’t publish new information to them.
My spoiler was in response to “I’d need much more specific evidence before dismissing it”, so my evidence would be dismissed anyway.
You do actually publish new relevant information to enciclopedias, that’s why they created new editions in time when they were printed on paper.
My initial point was and still is, wikipedia devours itself due to editors and their egos.