[ignoramous]

nb: Wikipedia favours verifiability over truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wp:vnt

> Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our readers. We don't ask for their blind trust.

[wpietri]

You sound like you have a problem with that, but I can't fathom what alternative course you'd rather them pursue.

[ignoramous]

It is just a note. I don't mean it to sound anything other than what Wikipedia itself states. I see a tonne of "Wikipedia agrees" but none of "Wikipedia is a living document" and it isn't its place to be a gospel of truth...

[outworlder]

Wikipedia is not and cannot, as per their own policies, be the primary source. 'Wikipedia agrees' is shorthand for 'the sources mentioned by this particular Wikipedia article agree'

[loeg]

I think it's shorthand for "the collective Wikipedia editors agree," which is not exactly the same thing as saying every claim is backed by any particular source.

[93po]

I think more accurately, "the group of Wikipedia editors that managed to 'win' a debate agree".

[travisjungroth]

You see none of "Wikipedia is a living document"? I think people are pretty aware.

You see a lot more cases of people quoting Wikipedia on a topic than talking about Wikipedia's trustworthiness because it adds a second dimension. It's [Wikipedia, Topic] vs. [Wikipedia].

I might look up 100 different things on Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia has all sorts of flaws is something I only needed to learn once.

[andrewflnr]

The phrase "Wikipedia agrees" succinctly encodes the correct degree of confidence, as opposed to "it's true, see Wikipedia".

[ignoramous]

An argument can be made, I guess, if one leaves out the exclamation... "Wikipedia agrees!"

[andrewflnr]

You're really reaching for nitpicks, there.