siryouarebeingmocked:bigby-direwolf:siryouarebeingmocked:ricwulf:skulk-id:ricwulf:robert-the-redhead
siryouarebeingmocked:bigby-direwolf:siryouarebeingmocked:ricwulf:skulk-id:ricwulf:robert-the-redhead-lover:biggerb0at:My engineering teacher in highschool taught us how to use Wikipedia because he understood that. So strict that the moderators only enact it when it goes against their ideology. For example, the very first line on the Wikipedia for the #GamerGate campaign is an ideological lie.The Gamergate controversy stemmed from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate. The controversy centered on issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy as well as for the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversyNeedless to say, the rest of the section also follows in this lie. That is a very big reason why Wikipedia is unreliable.Seriously, there have been numerous controversies involving Wikipedia and inaccuracies not only being tolerated, but fucking encouraged.Hell, the entire Feminist Edit-A-Thon is exactly that, looking to change and edit articles so that they have a Feminist slant, and that shit is encouraged.If you’re using Wikipedia for anything other than a start on sources (which means also looking up more sources after that), then you’re a fucking idiot.In general, sure, but there’s plenty of good content you can use as-is on math and hard sciences. Not really. There have been a variety of edit wars and the hard sciences are not exempt from this.It’s far safer to follow the rule of thumb and treat Wikipedia as shit, rather than trust it for anything. Wikipedia is a free source of unlimited information mostly maintained by one of the most infamously backstabbing, petty, and biased communities on the Internet, with enough Rules Lawyering to open up a national yardstick retailer specifically for attorneys.At best, Wikipedia can point you in the general direction of good sources, and even then it’s biased. Paige literally does not understand the criticisms of Wikipedia, and “they have sources and a policy” is not an actual argument for reliability. Ironically, she just demonstrated why she personally shouldn’t use Wikipedia as a source.Wikipedophiles frequently dub sources “Credible” and “Non-credible” depending on their political bias, meaning that blatantly left-wing sources are rated credible even if it’s just a couple of hipsters blogging at Starbucks, and sources that are generally right-wing can get listed as “Not credible” even if they’re actual newspapers.Anyone that uses Wikipedia for their college papers deserves to have their college degree be as useless as… … well as it will probably wind up being anyway.IIRC, one “Credible” source for the Gamergate article posted an OpEd that supported GG and suddenly became “Not Credible”. -- source link