Comment

Comment on Wikipedia sources their information better than most journalists do in their articles.

Wikipedia is a terrible source, but it’s a great source for other sources.

Lol! That’s what makes it a great source, not a terrible one. It compiles a wide variety of sources on different subjects, and cross references them with related subjects, so that additional information is easy to find.

Wikipedia itself should never be what you’re quoting. Quote the sources you find there.

source

Sort:hotnew top

WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Nah dawg. That’s a gaping hole in Wikipedias model and value proposition. How can THE global encyclopedia not archive its source material? What happens if all the sources get nuked? How can future historians calculate the accuracy of Wikipedia over time if the sources are not archived?

Apart from decentralization, their focus should not only be on archiving all current and future source material, but archiving all historic source material side its inception.

source
scintilla@lemm.ee ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
The more you research a specific topic the worse Wikipedia seems as a source. For a general overview before writing a paper and starting real research? It’s great.

For actually researching and compuiling that paper? Terrible. The Wikipedia editors are people too and they cant know everything.

I love Wikipedia and have donated and will donate again but looking back on it there’s a reason that most schools don’t let you source it as Wikipedia and make you look at the actual sources that Wikipedia uses.

source