Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PuzzleheadShine t1_j6m5ngk wrote

Isn't Wikipedia constantly evolving/changing though? Misinformation seems a little harsh but I don't know specifically which topic you're referring to.

I mean, if there is factually proven misinformation on Wikipedia I must ask what's stopping you or others from correcting it?

−1

Choice-Valuable313 t1_j6ng1kh wrote

Wikipedia is an interesting item.

The free editing is a lesser problem compared to plagiarism (folks copying and pasting whole passages into wiki entries from other sites).

Because of this, there is a high rate of accuracy on Wikipedia as a whole: https://library.canisius.edu/wikipedia/accuracy but it should be used as a tertiary source rather than a primary or secondary one due to the plagiarism, etc. Wikipedia acknowledges a preference that it be used as a tertiary source rather than a primary or secondary one, too, for formal research purposes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use. I think it’s awesome that the site editors take the time to discuss that. :)

2

PuzzleheadShine t1_j6nq6xi wrote

For sure, I certainly wouldn't want to suggest Wikipedia is infallible, I just felt the original commenters remarks a little unfair. Totally agree with you!

2

catcodex t1_j6m716i wrote

In general, the more popular a page/topic is, the less likely that the information on the page will be wrong.

It's very easy to introduce wrong info on dinky pages that nobody really looks at.

1

PuzzleheadShine t1_j6m7pqg wrote

I certainly hope my previous comment didn't give the impression I was disputing that. I felt their remark was a little disingenuous.

1

catcodex t1_j6m7u3a wrote

Oh yeah, my words weren't really directed at your comments. I guess I never know where to place random asides around here.

1

PuzzleheadShine t1_j6m9gbq wrote

For sure - you know what Reddit is like! I felt it best to err on the side of caution and clarify lol.

1