Do you trust Wikipedia as a source?

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

I used to take Wikipedia as basically sacred word... If something was in there, then it was simply true and right.

But then I started getting involved on a bunch of different topics, researching them so thoroughly as to be able to call myself an expert on each and every one of them. That's where the problems started and the illusion began to shatter.

The more I learned about certain topics, the more their corresponding Wikipedia pages began to look heavily misguided (if not downright vandalized with purposeful misinformation), to the point where I now only use it as a general outline rather than my main body of information. And if the topic is at all polarizing? It becomes an archipelago of truths flanked on all sides by a sea of half-lifes and random facts that are impossible to fact check.

That has only been MY experience, though... Maybe yours was/is different.

Tell us!

 

[Spike's iconSpike]

It's fairly neutral in my experience.
If I search conflicts it stats who did what and when, it even says what both sides reported about it.
So all in all, I think it's pretty great.

Do I take it as absolute truth? No, but I also don't think everything I read there is false. I don't believe in denying accepted facts (ie: Earth is round) to then believe a random dude in an obscure blog that knows the truth somehow...that's a hella dangerous reasoning (or lack of reasoning) IMO.

Only once I saw 1 vandalized article, I was reading Gackt's page and it said he had magical powers. I chuckled.

 

[KaiserMk7]

To paraphrase the words of some twitter or bluesky shitposter, "I'd rather be misinformed by the people than the content algorithm."
But yeah, no, there's strict moderation and peer reviewing and claim sourcing and all that, but that doesn't stop pet articles and refusal to allow change from being a problem in some contexts.

 

[bigstinkie]

gackt doesn't have magical powers?

 

[KaiserMk7]

Wikipedia is never going to be as fandom in terms of vandalism. Note the Grimace incident.

 

[Xdqwerty Xdqwerty]

Yeah

 

[fake-kun]

Inb4 it gets political.

 

[bigstinkie]

Wikipedia is never going to be as fandom in terms of vandalism. Note the Grimace incident.

did you drinked the grimace shake? wiggles henie vine boom sound effect can i has shakeburger?

 

[KaiserMk7]

Inb4 it gets political.

Grab some popcorn and a lawn chair, then.

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

I once saw the article page for a football player so utterly vandalized that it became a legendary shitpost... And they took months to fix it XD

 

[Stingy Perry Stingy Perry]

Well not most of the time. It’s really advisable to look fo other sources to get full picture.

 

[KaiserMk7]

did you drinked the grimace shake? wiggles henie vine boom sound effect can i has shakeburger?

McDonald's corporate paid Fandom to vandalize the McDonald's Fandom wiki's Grimace page as part of the Grimace's Birthday promotion, violating the efforts and desires of the wiki maintainers in the process.

 

[bigstinkie]

McDonald's corporate paid Fandom to vandalize the McDonald's Fandom wiki's Grimace page as part of the Grimace's Birthday promotion, violating the efforts and desires of the wiki maintainers in the process.

i made a face akin to that of someone who licked a silly lemon
did a billion dollar company really pay a wikipedia websight to vandalise webpages to promote their new product
that is very strange behaviour

 

[KaiserMk7]

i made a face akin to that of someone who licked a silly lemon
did a billion dollar company really pay a wikipedia websight to vandalise webpages to promote their new product
that is very strange behaviour

Two completely different things. Wikipedia is an independent community resource of sorts. The site that would become Wikia and eventually Fandom is very much owned by a for-profit company whose priority is not content quality, but amassing articles and being people's go-to for information on their favorite media so as to serve more ads.

 

[bigstinkie]

Two completely different things. Wikipedia is an independent community resource of sorts. The site that would become Wikia and eventually Fandom is very much owned by a for-profit company whose priority is not content quality, but amassing articles and being people's go-to for information on their favorite media so as to serve more ads.

ah i see, thank you for clarifying
that would explain why there are one million advertisements per page on the mobile phone version of fandom of when i look up 'why can i not defeat the large hairy man in x game'

 

[Rusk]

Only on scientific and maybe some historical events.
The less "up to interpretation" an article is, the more reliable the info.

 

[Doc X]

Kind of. Wikipedia has its shortcomings and biases; however, it'll always be a more trustworthy source than AI, that's for sure.

 

[KaiserMk7]

ah i see, thank you for clarifying
that would explain why there are one million advertisements per page on the mobile phone version of fandom of when i look up 'why can i not defeat the large hairy man in x game'

Fortunately, Firfox's extension "store" has a both ublock origin and a dedicated fandom debloat extension to stop the screen-filling overlay ads and autoplaying youtube video of often-inaccurate information spouted by a fandom-owned channel from ever bothering you.
Also, most wikis across the web in general are based on the same open source piece of software, Fandom editing permissions are an all or nothing approach where either any registered user at all or only wiki maintainers may edit articles on a given wiki, Fandom refuses to ever let maintainers close wikis, and Fandom kicks you from your wiki's maintainer list if you ever fork it-copy its contents-to another website.

 

[Anti-Law Savior]

I used to take Wikipedia as basically sacred word... If something was in there, then it was simply true and right.

But then I started getting involved on a bunch of different topics, researching them so thoroughly as to be able to call myself an expert on each and every one of them. That's where the problems started and the illusion began to shatter.

The more I learned about certain topics, the more their corresponding Wikipedia pages began to look heavily misguided (if not downright vandalized with purposeful misinformation), to the point where I now only use it as a general outline rather than my main body of information. And if the topic is at all polarizing? It becomes an archipelago of truths flanked on all sides by a sea of half-lifes and random facts that are impossible to fact check.

That has only been MY experience, though... Maybe yours was/is different.

Tell us!

Not always. I'm not sure if this is correct but cant someone just edit or change information presented on Wikipedia?

 

[KaiserMk7]

Not always. I'm not sure if this is correct but cant someone just edit or change information presented on Wikipedia?

Yes, but every change is tracked automatically by software, changes can be reverted, and vandals' accounts and IP addresses can be banned. There's a hierarchy in place.

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

Not always. I'm not sure if this is correct but cant someone just edit or change information presented on Wikipedia?

Yes, anyone with an account can edit articles.

I remember one guy making his state slightly longer each day by editing the boundaries and borders just for the hell of it XD

 

[Tonberry]

Yes. I donate to them annually too (though only a tiny donation because I don't have a lot of money) when they do their yearly ask, but I always check the sources when it's something I'm doing anything other than a cursory little glance on.
I've always been thorough about checking sources, no matter where I go though and, if anything, it's the idea of what Wikipedia can and should (and mostly already is) ideally be I like a lot, and I'd like to believe in the goodness of people no not mess with it too much, even if it occasionally happens.

 

[Anti-Law Savior]

Yes, anyone with an account can edit articles.

I remember one guy making his state slightly longer each day by editing the boundaries and borders just for the hell of it XD

Wait what!?

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

Wait what!?

He'd go to his state's Wikipedia page and change the territorial extension by a few kilometers each day just to see if anyone would notice.

They did... After it started invading two neighboring states by sheer size XD

 

[UnDubious]

It's relatively accurate for what it is, all in all, but it's definitely not some sacred bastion of truth. I've seen mistakes relating to obscure media, that sort of thing. Sometimes I look up the wikipedia entry for a movie I just watched just to look for more movies by the same director or with the same actors or something, and the synopsis will have blatant mistakes in it, like it was written from memory a while after they'd actually seen it. Other times I'll open a few related pages pertaining to some historical topic and they'll have very different viewpoints about the same events, and each of them will present their version as fact.