no banana@piefed.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-21 个月前Wikipeter founded the website in 1993 when he wanted to know more about model trains without having to visit the library lemmy.worldimagemessage-square124fedilinkarrow-up11.29Karrow-down117
arrow-up11.27Karrow-down1imageWikipeter founded the website in 1993 when he wanted to know more about model trains without having to visit the library lemmy.worldno banana@piefed.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-21 个月前message-square124fedilink
minus-squareZorcron@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 个月前How is it not? Genuine question, I use wiki a lot, and generally trust the articles, though I have seen some inaccuracies before.
minus-squareDeceptichum@quokk.aulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up18arrow-down1·1 个月前Because there are mistakes anywhere. Wikipedia gives you the tools to easily verify what you’re reading.
minus-squareZorcron@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·1 个月前Okay, so you’re saying that although the editor made a mistake or was biased, but unlike a lot of other resources, they have to show their sources, so if you care to look, you can see if it is true? If so, I think that makes sense.
minus-squareDeceptichum@quokk.aulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·1 个月前Pretty much. Theres also resources such as revision histories that add an extra layer of information that you can’t find in other information sources. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best around.
minus-squareHudell@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·1 个月前I just meant that the intention behind my comment was not to attack Wikipedia in general.
minus-squareZorcron@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 个月前Oh, you know, I didn’t even realize you replied to yourself.
How is it not? Genuine question, I use wiki a lot, and generally trust the articles, though I have seen some inaccuracies before.
Because there are mistakes anywhere. Wikipedia gives you the tools to easily verify what you’re reading.
Okay, so you’re saying that although the editor made a mistake or was biased, but unlike a lot of other resources, they have to show their sources, so if you care to look, you can see if it is true?
If so, I think that makes sense.
Pretty much.
Theres also resources such as revision histories that add an extra layer of information that you can’t find in other information sources.
It’s not perfect, but it’s the best around.
I just meant that the intention behind my comment was not to attack Wikipedia in general.
Oh, you know, I didn’t even realize you replied to yourself.