Can confirm, I’ve been a Wikipedia zealot the entire time and people really do seem to have accepted it. If you ignore what else makes them cheer, it’s a huge victory.
Comment on Wikipedia urges AI companies to use its paid API, and stop scraping
who@feddit.org 3 days agoKind of funny: When Wikipedia was new, people often said that you couldn’t trust information on it because anyone could have written it, even if they were unqualified, biased, or deliberately deceptive. I guess that’s still true today, but with the advent of automated misinformation generators, the Wiki almost seems authoritative in comparison.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
MurrayL@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yeah, when I was at school in the early 00s we were specifically told not to use Wikipedia as a research source.
Revan343@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
Which is ridiculous, everybody knows that you should be banned from referencing Wikipedia as a source because an encyclopedia is not a source
arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 days ago
Uh, it’s a tertiary source. It’s still a source, just not one you should be directly citing. They’re great for finding other sources though.
Aneb@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I got a F for plagiarism when I looked up the wiki and dived deeper into the sources and tried to incorporate the ideas and not trying to copy word for word. Apparently 65% was flagged as direct plagiarism from Wiki when I used the sources to write my essay. I was in 6th grade
Revan343@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
If we’re being pedantic, yeah, but ‘source’ without qualifiers to me would refer to the one you’d cite. Wikipedia is great for finding general information, and then as you say, finding the source for that information (and also generally a lot more depth to the summary that’s on Wiki).
Tl;dr use Wiki, don’t cite Wiki
quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 days ago
You’re supposed to reference the articles that Wikipedia references, not Wikipedia itself