It’s December 2012, and someone’s just noticed something is wrong on the Internet.
Wikipedia editor ShelfSkewed (happily that’s a pseudonym) has been clicking links in an article about an obscure 17th-Century war that raged between the Portuguese rulers of Goa, western India, and the neighbouring Maratha Empire. It was called the Bicholim Conflict, after the North Goa district it mostly took place in.
Haven’t you heard of the Bicholim Conflict? ShelfSkewed certainly hadn’t. He wanted to know more – and started investigating the extensive sources listed at the bottom of the article.
But then he found many of the links led him straight to one article: the one he was editing. A perfect loop.
Ruh-roh.
It must be reliable. Abraham Lincoln used it to help him write the Gettysburg Address.
Excellent, midislandmike. +++ and +
Not about Global Warming it isn’t.
… nor
Is it reliable about insisting the 2020 US election was the most perfect, legal, and most secure election in the history of the US
ken gee
Have you figured out yet that Snowden is hero?
You must be a consumer of DICKapedia BS!
gym
Have you learned yet to read with comprehension?
You must be a consumer of The Colon’s BS!
Hero or not. What has been done to him, is far beyond the rule of law.
Is Wikipedia reliable?
Not since day two.
“Is Wikipedia reliable?
Not since day two.”
Exactly. It’s useful for movie and TV information, for checking the populations or histories of countries, for looking up properties of metals or plastics, for any number of mundane things that we used to rely on encyclopedias for…but for anything even the least bit political, it is TOTALLY left-wing biased, and therefore useless. I laugh every time I read their pleas for donations.
I used to think it was great for reading about things like old battleships and locomotives. Wars before the 20th century, ancient history…
but the whole point of this article is that even a Wikipedia story about some obscure 17th century war can be entirely bullshit.
Can’t trust any of it.
99% of Wikipedia is good — well written and accurate. Often it’s downright excellent.
It’s only when current politics and controveries are involved do you have to be careful.
I call bullshit on your 99% claim.
And, precisely how does one separate the wheat from the chaff? Most times it’s impossible.
Solution? Like Gaggle, MotherCorpse and other MSM, don’t use Wiki for anything, save as a bad example.
Because sometimes I read stuff that I’m very familiar with, and it stands up well. Like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_value_decomposition
“precisely how does one separate the wheat from the chaff?”
If there’s no way to separate truth and falsehood, on what basis do you challenge the 99%?
Read the Wikipedia entry for your hometown, or your favourite hockey team, or any hobby that you have a deep knowledge of. Anything mundane like that. Count the blatant errors. You won’t find many.
Killer Marmot: “99% of Wikipedia is good […]”
99% you say? In God we trust. All others bring data.
You forgot the decimal before the first “9”.
Paul Ryan is listed among various examples of invertebrates. Seems right to me.
Wikipedia has an unofficial “editorial board” of volunteers. These are the sort of people with the free time to edit articles for free.
So, naturally, they’re recruited from the “elites,” and are as opposed to the God of Israel those who fear Him and keep His commandments as any other “mainstream media.”
What “Wikipedia” is still a thing?
When you are caught lying to serve your agenda,why would you think anyone gives a damn what your “facts” are?
Lying Progressive Scumbags..
So Wikipedia is useless and ignored..
A perfect own goal.
So no surprise it takes 5 years to realize you are an idiot..using Wikipedia..
I’m sure you can find a list of Al Gore’s Florida Electors on Wikipedia…
Wikipedia articles are no different than some SDA comments. It helps if you can sniff out the bullshitters and the cheerleaders.
It’s called a “froot loop” (named after the circular citations used to support a fictional claim (done as a joke) that the cereal Froot Loops was originally called Fruit Loops, but they had to change the name because the manufacturer was sued for false advertising because there wasn’t any fruit in the cereal). There are numerous stories where Wikipedia has circular citations, or refuses to correct errors because of the volume of references to inaccurate citations.
Wiki is fine for unimportant things.. Not good at all for important things because its both camped with activists and the target of activists..