Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by james-redwood 1593 days ago
Wikipedia is a gigantic hit and miss. I often loathe to see it linked as gospel truth.
1 comments

> Wikipedia was always seen as a bit dubious and uncertain

Base knowledge has to come from somewhere, so where it would have been an encyclopedia fifteen years ago it is wikipedia now. That's just the times moving on - if you have material concerns with the linked articles you are free to edit them (although it must be said you will have a hard time doing so with rich folks - they have firms to whitewash their pages).

> Base knowledge has to come from somewhere, so where it would have been an encyclopedia fifteen years ago it is wikipedia now.

That agrees with the parent and GP comments: The assertion was that people rarely evaluate credibility, and the common citation of Wikipedia is given as an example. So we all agree that Wikipedia is commonly used.

If you mean that Wikipedia is inevitably used, that seems hard to suppot. There are an incredible number of sources available, and there's no reason Wikipedia had to be popular now. If people cared more about accuracy, a source with more focus on it would be more popular. I never use Wikipedia beyond checking the schedule for sporting events.

> if you have material concerns with the linked articles you are free to edit them

The problem is that I don't know what is accurate and what isn't on Wikipedia, and I don't have time to research everything. Also, editing Wikipedia is often very difficult and frustrating.

> although it must be said you will have a hard time doing so with rich folks - they have firms to whitewash their pages

And a hard time with anything controversial, or a page where an editor or editors who feel ownership, or one with an astroturfing campaign, or many others. Wikipedia is the original disinformation source, discovered long ago by some groups.