You literally just scroll down to the Works Cited and find sources there
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“Dismissing Wikipedia” is my political litmus test.
To be clear, it’s never been a reliable source; we learned that in middle school. You take everything written on it with a grain of salt.
…But it’s still an oasis in a desert. When some of my family started questioning its utility because of its “liberal bias,” like post-grad-educated family saying this as Fox News blares in the background, I knew things had gotten bad.
I haven’t seen any extreme left question it IRL, but I feel like that’s coming too, with how tankies are skeptical of it.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yeah. Funny how we have those guardrails for wikipedia, yet people still take ais as factual.
Venator@lemmy.nz 22 hours ago
Google tried to do something similar with thier AI summaries, but every time I’ve looked at its “citations” they’ve said nothing that it said they did, or the exact opposite…
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 18 hours ago
often time the “source” googles AI is from non-reputable sources like a block or someones opinion on a site.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Human brains just aren’t wired for citations. Especially outside academia I guess.
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 1 day ago
To be clear, it’s never been a reliable source; we learned that in middle school.
Someone must have skipped middle school when you didn’t learn what “citations” are.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
We certainly did. We learned Chicago/APA style, types of sources, and how to make citations in reports.
And that Wikipedia is not appropriate as a source to cite.
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
And that Wikipedia is not appropriate as a source to cite.
That’s why you use Wikipedia as means of sourcing the citations. You look up an article, learn about it through Wiki, then further educate yourself on the topic through the citations.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Exactly!
Credible sourcing seems to be a lost art on the internet, though.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 day ago
I used to be an editor on there so have a lot of mixed feelings about it, there’s a lot of bullshit that goes on.
It’s good for hard sciences, but most articles on “soft” subjects like history do have a pro western liberal capitalist bias. Although the amount of bias usually depends on what senior editor decided he owns the article, despite “owning” articles being against the Wikipedia rules.
Redditsux@lemmy.world [bot] 1 day ago
I find that to be true too, that wiki isn’t a reliable source. Wiki is just a battle ground for internet warfare for political ideas in every field. Whoever has the most resources on their side gets to write it.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 18 hours ago
i wouldnt say good on non-phyiscs stem, often times its outdated and never fixed for years.