Yeah because 1. obviously this is what everybody does. And 2. Just because sources are provided does not mean they are in any way balanced.
The fact that you would waste my time with this sort of response probably indicates how weak wikipedia is.
Comment on Elon Musk wants to rewrite "the entire corpus of human knowledge" with Grok
TheGreenWizard@lemmy.zip 8 hours agoWikipedia gives lists of their sources, judge what you read based off of that. Or just skip to the sources and read them instead.
aaron@infosec.pub 8 hours ago
InputZero@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Just because Wikipedia offers a list of references doesn’t mean that those references reflect what knowledge is actually out there. Wikipedia is trying to be academically rigorous without any of the real work. A big part of doing academic research is reading articles and studies that are wrong or which prove the null hypothesis. That’s why we need experts and not just an AI to regurgitate information. Wikipedia is useful if people understand it’s limitations, I think a lot of people don’t though.
TheGreenWizard@lemmy.zip 6 hours ago
For sure, Wikipedia is for the most basic subjects to research, or the first step of doing any research (they could still offer helpful sources) . For basic stuff, or quick glances of something for conversation.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
This very much depends on the subject, I suspect. For math or computer science, wikipedia is an excellent source, and the credentials of the editors maintaining those areas are formidable to say the least.