Wikipedia is fine for fun reading, however very unreliable - the Brittanica response is quite crushing by the way.
As for the tedious response of “if you see an error edit it”- I am not being paid to edit it, and from the idiotic edit wars I’ve observed on that thing, have absolutely no inclination to labour away from free to support the Wiki-Propaganda.
ETA:
I should clarify that I think it’s fine and great that Wikipedia exists, terribly useful for the sort of debates that go on here, which don’t really require as such one break out a Brittanica. But confusing it with any kind of proper research reference material, a terrible error.
“Oops” comes to mind. I sincerely thought that was for the actors in the Best Picture winner. Odd that nobody has gone through and fixed my good-faith edits…
I don’t the Brittanica would have this sort of thing, from the Wikipedia entry for Dan Quinn (fighter):
“Quinn most recently suffered a loss at the hands of Rick Vardell, a beating that Dan wouldn’t be able to give to his own children if he in fact ever saw them.”
(For those of you who are wondering, I was looking at the article for Maitreya, and followed the link down the rabbit hole.)
It’s also not a good point given that folks on here have posted about how they’ve had to give up on trying to fix Wikipedia because they are working professionals who don’t have the time to sit all day long and undo edits by trolls who win by default of not having a life? I’ve posted about my example of how I tried for a week to fix an egregious error in a Wiki article about coal, and got into a fight with some snot-nosed shitheel in Germany who fucked with me by undoing my edits, often within 1 minute after I made them. It didn’t matter if I provided 30 hard citations, it didn’t matter if I am myself an expert in a very small field, all that mattered was who can hit the edit button faster. I complained to admins there, I complained in the discussion pages, and I was flat-out ignored.
It’s ironic that the fact that I’m a working non-parents-basement-dwelling adult professional counts against me for trying to make Wikipedia better, since I don’t have the time and fortitude to sit up 24/7 and undo vandalism. Huh.
This is a serious and fatal flaw with Wikipedia that shows no signs of going away. Wikipedia is a great resource on the whole of it, and it’s a wealth of information on obscure topics, but when you focus on the fine print, it doesn’t look so good. I mean sure, it’s great to find something like the biography of an obscure TV show from the 1960’s in multi-page detail on Wikipedia - but then when I see all the errors and vandalism in other articles which I do know something about, I have to ask “well, sure, they have a giant page on this show - but is any of it real?” And the answer sadly is “I don’t know.”
And even if I try to do the research myself or check sources - God damn, it seems like in some of the articles fully half or more of the “citations” don’t even exist, or exist but have dead links.
I’m sorry but anyone who trusts wikipedia on articles relating to controversial topics is a moron.
Also, anyone who thinks articles on controversial issues, such as the Armenian Holocaust, Islam-related articles, and Israel related articles clearly doesn’t pay attention to those articles or what sources are used for them.
If I could nominate your post for some sort of award I would. Yeah, it’s that good.
Which probably matches almost every other smart educated person who doesn’t have all the time in the world to spend in idiotic battles.
It’s also a flaw that most people recognize. The thing is, so far nobody has come up with anything better, or you can be sure that would be what we discuss.
I’m know for fixing or killing off dead links, or updating little tiny bits of information like that, because you can at least contribute with out being drug into the wiki hole of death.
I could completely bitch out about my experience with the half dozen fucktards who flat out ‘won’, because they had nothing but time, and nobody really gives a shit after some point.
Their idea of ‘winning’ was to prevent the world from having easy access to valid information, backed up by reachable sources.
Yeah, that is the real evil at work. Not ‘bad’ sources, (which anyone can check). The forces of evil want to delete sources. To delete information. If it doesn’t match their view of the world.
And that sort of evil is another whole war, nothing like the trolls and vandals. Trolls fools and vandals can be easily dealt with. But a determined lunatic with an agenda, that’s a lot harder.
How about locking down a page as “accurate” when some percentage/raw number of users vote “This is good”. All new info would go in a new info box at the bottom of the page beyond the “accurate” section.
As the “new stuff” fills up, a behind the scenes page (like old edited pages) would be discussed and edited by those who care with the updated info. Once X% of people agree that the new stuff is integrated, it gets moved to the front, replacking the old “accurate” page.
Repeat as needed
Still not perfect: a group of dedicated ideologues could still fill a page with garbage, but it’s much better (IMO) then the current system where pages can disappear while you’re reading them.
A lot of pages are locked so that only registered users can edit. And pages that are ‘vandalized’ or too contentious do get locked down. But that prevents any updates for new information.
It’s all very chaotic, and yet so many articles are actually excellent. Go figure.
To be fair, they have no idea who you are. As far as the admins are concerned, you are just some Joe/Jane Blow who likes to whine, especially if the true vandals stay quiet.
That may have been even worse. Let’s face it, the “admins” at Wikipedia aren’t experts*, and they may have thought you were a bit biased. That is a no-no over there, and they may have wanted a “neutral” third party do the editing.
*and they do back down when confronted—I’ve won a few arguments with them when I cared to bother with it
So since no neutral third party would get involved, the solution is to allow some teenaged troll to have the last word because he has no life and can type faster?
I can’t speak for all Wikipedia admins, but the ones I’ve personally known have been immature power-hungry losers who are likely to be wearing a Cheetos-stained t-shirt which reads “enius at Work”, the “G” in “Genius” being missing due to their mom spilling bleach on it. I know there are some good ones who are smart and diligently hard-working and who care about their work, I just never happen to run into them.
I sincerely thought that was for the actors in the Best Picture winner. Odd that nobody has gone through and fixed my good-faith edits…