I just meant that the intention behind my comment was not to attack Wikipedia in general.
How is it not? Genuine question, I use wiki a lot, and generally trust the articles, though I have seen some inaccuracies before.
Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Zorcron@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
Oh, you know, I didn’t even realize you replied to yourself.
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.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 weeks ago
Pretty much.
Theres also resources such as revision histories that add an extra layer of information that you can’t find in other information sources.
It’s not perfect, but it’s the best around.