• @Onfire
    link
    1868 months ago

    Wiki was getting popular when I was in college over 10 years ago. I recall a history professor telling me not to use Wikipedia as source. I am like, okay, I will just use the source wiki uses, which are pretty solid in my opinion. Wiki came a long way.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      968 months ago

      Yeah, it’s important to remember that wikipedia, itself, isn’t a source, it’s a summary of different sources. It’s a great resource to find sources and get an overview of a topic, though.

    • @Jarix
      link
      398 months ago

      Wikipedia does a pretty decent job of eventually being correct, at any given time it can be outrageously inaccurate. Its good to not just use wikipedia entrys and use the sources that are linked there. By using the sources that are cited you are helping to keep wiki trustworthy and helps avoid you using bad information.

      It works well to manage the integrity of wiki. I think being able to intuitively navigate between entries by a variety of metrics like edits that have remained unedited the longest/shorest, newest/oldest, etc would be a very good addition to wiki.

      Some kind of webarchive of wiki sources would also be amazing so that if the sources disappear or change over time there is a connection to what it was at the time it originally/previously was used as a source on wiki.

      And maybe some of this already exists and im just not very good at getting my 4dollars a month worth :P

      • AFK BRB Chocolate
        link
        English
        178 months ago

        Wikipedia does a pretty decent job of eventually being correct, at any given time it can be outrageously inaccurate.

        Yeah, I agree with this. I work at a high end engineering company, and some engineers have gotten into trouble using things like materials properties that they got from Wikipedia and turned out to be wrong, with unfortunate results. By policy, if we don’t know something like that we’re supposed to ask our tech library to get us the information, and that’s why.

          • AFK BRB Chocolate
            link
            English
            68 months ago

            They get fixed, but that doesn’t prevent someone from using erroneous information on the next one. Just one bad number can be a big deal.

      • @daltotron
        link
        28 months ago

        A bunch of wikipedia sources are already archived on the wayback machine, anything cited to like pre-2010, online, there’s a good chance it got taken down or changed in the last 13 years.

    • SeaJ
      link
      fedilink
      178 months ago

      As long as you verify the source still exists. There are so many dead links on Wikipedia.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      148 months ago

      Please dig a little bit deeper. You may end up with a stack of links to 404 sites instead of actual sources. Just because you copied a citation from WP doesn’t mean the source actually exists, let alone contains the information you seek.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      And it’ll get even better. That being said, it’s worth checking out the Talk pages on the articles you want to use, as they may contain information about what is (and isn’t) displayed.

      I started passively editing it and I’ve been incredibly impressed.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      828 months ago

      The thing is that it is very easy to read Wikipedia critically, since it lists every single source they get info from at the bottom of the page.

        • @joneskind
          link
          358 months ago

          Someone has to do the job for everyone else can enjoy it.

          Thank you very much for your service my friend.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            138 months ago

            Haha you’re welcome. I just wished that the original authors would be more careful about providing sources for claims or statements.

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        208 months ago

        I feel like news sources used to link to their sources too, but now it seems to be an infinite chain of links to their own articles, never directly taking you to the first hand source of information (unless they are the source).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          88 months ago

          That’s why you don’t use Wikipedia as your primary source, you follow the citations. Of course, if you can’t verify that it’s accurate information, don’t report it, but it can be used as a jump off to find a legitimate source if the information you cant immediately verify is useful.

      • @TheActualDevil
        link
        138 months ago

        The thing is, if the place you’re getting your information from doesn’t list it’s sources, you can’t trust it. Whenever I’m researching a thing on the internet and I find an article or a paper, I don’t just stop there, I check where they got their info, then I find that source and read it. I follow it all the way back until I find the primary source.

        Like the other day I was writing a paper about a particular court case. In the opinions, as in most cases, they use precedent and cite prior cases. So I found the other cases that referred to the thing I was writing about, and it turns out they were also just using prior cases. I had to go 6 deep before I found them referencing the actual constitution for one of them. On another I found it interesting that the most recent use case was so far removed from what the original one was about and it was could probably be questionable to even use it as precedent if they had used the original instead of another case.

        Anyway, the point is, always check sources. If anyone says anything on the internet, assume it’s just their opinion until you check and follow the sources…

        • @AngryCommieKender
          link
          18 months ago

          Are you familiar with Harlow V Fitzgerald, and the full text of article 1983 including the 16 words that went missing in n 1874 when it was “copied” from the Congressional Record into the Federal Register? I’m not a lawyer, but I do want that decision reviewed, since as the law was written and passed by Congress, Harlow V Fitzgerald should have gone the other way.

    • @Torvum
      link
      418 months ago

      Love reading any article then opening the talk tab for the civil war of edits proposed.

    • brianorca
      link
      98 months ago

      You should read everything critically. Which is easier on Wikipedia because it provides sources.

  • @crimsdings
    link
    908 months ago

    Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for information - but saying you can absolutely trust it hell no.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      22
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yup, tried to correct something about a motorcycle manufacturer (no road legal model between year A and Z), linked to another Wikipedia article proving what I was saying (road legal modelS in year W to Y, just before Z), the next day the page was back to its previous version. I linked to the article about the road legal model they pretended didn’t exist and they just edited the page back to its previous version…

      • NotSteffen
        link
        148 months ago

        How dare you hurt another editor’s feelings with your facts!

  • Engywuck
    link
    fedilink
    85
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Wikipedia is the only piece of the internet I would save from apocalipse. Like, seriously.

    • @MightEnlightenYou
      link
      218 months ago

      Yeah, I have Wikipedia saved to a portable hard drive… Just in case

      • Engywuck
        link
        fedilink
        128 months ago

        I don’t know if you’re making fun of me, but, seriously, for me Wikipedia is an enormously valuable resource, much more than, for instance, YouTube (which I use, maybe, twice per year).

        • @LuckyBoy
          link
          20
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          There is a lot of People with a copy of Wikipedia, it only takes 8GB. Just for the case something happens. I dont think he is making fun of you.

          Edit: this 8 GB was 10 years ago. From another article from 2022 it says 150Gb.

        • @Damaskox
          link
          48 months ago

          Some folks enjoy reading articles. Some folks enjoy to watch, listen and read (captions) at the same time. Some folks rather ask around and learn through conversations.

          I’ve understood that it’s generally easier to learn new things when you use many different channels (audio, imagery etc). To many people but not to all.

        • @MightEnlightenYou
          link
          28 months ago

          Wasn’t making fun of you, just agreeing with you and telling you my fix

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        78 months ago

        I remember in the mid-aughts my brother hacked his iPod — the wheel kind, this was pre-iPhone — to hold the entirety of the text of English Wikipedia at the time.

        • @joneskind
          link
          17
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          According to my app, the whole English Wikipedia with pictures weighs 102.62GB, down to 60,06GB without.

          There’s also a mini version that weighs 58,29GB but I don’t know what it contains

          Wikipedia 1m Top Articles weighs 43,53GB

          kiwix

          • silly goose meekah
            link
            7
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Any idea how the 8gb from another comment might be achieved?

            Edit: I guess zipping it should work pretty well

            • @joneskind
              link
              48 months ago

              TBH I have no idea

              I just took a look at what my app is saying, but I didn’t dig into it

            • @calcopiritus
              link
              28 months ago

              It’s probably only the text. Images and videos weigh a lot more than text.

              • silly goose meekah
                link
                38 months ago

                According to my app, the whole English Wikipedia with pictures weighs 102.62GB, down to 60,06GB without.

                60GB is still more than 8GB