It’s not just smaller pages. Brands and people pay for PR people to maintain their page.
Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
There’s a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia too, of many different kinds. Some smaller pages exists purely for someone’s PR. I’ve seen blatantly false (but “verifiable”) stuff too but the most common thing is to have pages that are just creative with the truth.
Also sometimes I’ll notice an article make multiple different claims that all point to the same source and then check the source and realize it is not a valid source for all of those claims, just some.
And also there’s stuff that gets flagged as verified based on extrapolation of data from a combination of sources. For example: one source says “John Doe facing 1 billion dollars fines if found guilty” and another source says “John Doe was found guilty”, then the article says “John Doe fined 1 billion dollars after being found guilty” as verified, then you go search the web and find no mention of any fines actually being issued following the verdict.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
But shouldnt fact be neutral? For example: “the holocaust was evil and killed countless innocent civilians” or “the holocaust resulted in (actual estimate) civilian deaths” The former is emotional and the latter is factual, but both highlight the perpetrated evil against the innocent.
Maybe I’m oversimplifying your point.
MummysLittleBloodSlut@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Watch this bs:
The holocaust is alleged by pro-Jewish groups to have resulted in the deaths of six million Jews
Feels gross to read, right?
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Yes.
But it’s also possible to just quietly omit information.
The holocaust resulted in millions of deaths
Sounds bad
the holocaust resulted in the death of approximately six million Jews and a further eight to ten million people from other groups such as Russian POW, Slav, Roma, Sinti, and homosexuals.
Puts figures to how bad it was.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
…and homosexuals
Imagine if western powers had carved off a chunk of the middle east and then said “and this spot is just for the gays”.
saltesc@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I frequently check Wikipedia citations, just to be disappointed. Wiki sources can be a great shortcut to good citations, but often I realise much of an article’s content is built out of the soggiest cardboard.
Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Btw this is not an argument against Wikipedia in any way.
Zorcron@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
How is it not? Genuine question, I use wiki a lot, and generally trust the articles, though I have seen some inaccuracies before.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 weeks ago
Because there are mistakes anywhere. Wikipedia gives you the tools to easily verify what you’re reading.
Zorcron@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
Okay, so you’re saying that although the editor made a mistake or was biased, but unlike a lot of other resources, they have to show their sources, so if you care to look, you can see if it is true?
If so, I think that makes sense.
Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
I just meant that the intention behind my comment was not to attack Wikipedia in general.
Zorcron@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
Oh, you know, I didn’t even realize you replied to yourself.
comfy@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I think it’s perfectly valid to criticize it for accepting blatantly false but “verifiable” edits. I’m aware that the world is complex and perfection is idealistic, especially when it comes to topics where sources are inherently strongly biased, but publishing false information on a site with the format, style and reputation of Wikipedia is a real problem at a scale with far-reaching impact. To shift the onus of fact-checking onto the user is extremely inefficient and negligible.
I’m not even saying that there is a better solution, but it’s certainly an argument criticizing Wikipedia.