lesbianbrachiosaurus:Seriously tho as someone who put literal years of effort into creating a Wikipe
lesbianbrachiosaurus:Seriously tho as someone who put literal years of effort into creating a Wikipedia hoax it’s basically impossible to get away with for more than like an hour. They’re fucking vigilant. I tried to build up trust by doing legit editing but my account got reviewed cause I approved a page that mismeasured the size of a ship by a few centimetersOkay, NO, though. I’ve already responded to this post here, with external links, but I will add this: the mere existence of sources says nothing about the validity of those sources. It doesn’t tell you whether those sources are outdated, or disproved, or maybe just neglecting marginalized voices in the field. Despite concerted effort – I know a number of college instructors who do Wikipedia editing projects with their classes – Wikipedia is still not some wondrous “free source of unlimited information.” In some areas, sure, it can be great. In others… not so much (see this Harvard study.) Gender bias remains a pervasive problem. If you want a starting point, as an educated reader? Sure, go ahead. But for the love of all that is good, don’t stop there. I really, really worry about holding up any single resource as some sort of Holy Grail. And using the mere existence of sources as a test of accuracy/reliability, as the Tweet does? I need to breathe into a bag and recite a list of logical fallacies. -- source link
Tumblr Blog : veryfunnymemes.tumblr.com
#wikipedia#education#studyblr#college