Comment on House Republicans Investigate Wikipedia Over Alleged Bias
Goodman@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week agoIt’s true that it is not generally accepted for writing a paper or essay, but that does not mean that the information is completely unreliable. While I’m sure that Wikipedia is not perfect with regards to truth, it is more accessible, democratized and readable than many primary sources or peer reviewed articles. Those properties have a lot of value by themselves. Would you not agree?
salty_chief@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I mean it is comparative to someone saying everything on lemmy is correct because people believe it true. Wiki is a open source so anyone can add to it. Anyone with. Strong opinion or faulty information. Basically just a collection of open source info without regulations.
Retro_unlimited@lemmy.world 1 week ago
But the sources are listed below on wifipedia, not in lemmy.
salty_chief@lemmy.world 1 week ago
True Lemmy will not let you post anything from certain news sources. Wiki people can cite anything so Lemmy is more limiting to narrow its users information.
tabular@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Nothing stopped someone writing a bogus paper claiming an MMR vaccine causes autism. It being a paper likely gave it undue credit to people who were convinced by it, not that they read it…
Goodman@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week ago
Right and we also use lemmy, but we still weigh and judge what we read here or at least we should. And we should do the same for Wikipedia, even though I would argue that Wikipedia has higher epistemic standards than Lemmy. The point being, the openness of these platforms is a quality on its own. Wikipedia isn’t perfect, but it is far from terrible.