[snedfree]

the wikipedia article on this boat is throws a fair amount of cold water on the narrative presented here

[srvmshr]

Further corroborative article to Wikipedia that gives a truer picture of history surrounding USS William D. Porter. Unlike the anecdata in this post, this counters with actual ship logs, recorded conversations, and ship schematics:

https://uncommonsenseok.blogspot.com/2020/02/uss-william-d-p...

OP's article is a spiced up, gossip laden naval lore - the types you expect from navymen banter in pubs & watering holes.

[TedDoesntTalk]

It may be more accurate in this particular case, but please don’t assume Wikipedia is always correct.

[metabagel]

I think we can now safely say that Wikipedia is highly likely to be more accurate than almost any other internet source. We shouldn’t feel uncomfortable citing it, nor should it be necessary to include a disclaimer every time we do.

[ethbr0]

* for articles on popular and well-documented topics

On the other hand, once you get off into the weeds (dead-tree citations, thinly visited articles), Wikipedia's reliability alters significantly.

Unfortunately, it's not always clear which sort of article you're reading.

[dbcurtis]

“More accurate than the internet.”

I want that on a tee shirt.