Wikipedia and dark side editing

[Endus]

No they definitely explicitly state: "Reliability isn't trustworthy so... no Wikipedia."

I've had post-grad teachers specifically spell out how both Wikipedia and the sources it links to are off-limits minus official sourcing like NIST and such. It really is lazy as hell for research and the moment you step outside of hard and fast reproducible information, there are ridiculous things that pass as "fact" or "knowledge"

Best to ignore it outright when much better specialized sources exist for whatever field you're pursuing. A bit of looking around provides better in almost every case.

Recommendations like that at the post-grad level is so incredibly lazy. And dangerous, in that they're declaring that any source Wikipedia links to is to be considered "tainted", for some godforsaken reason.

Yes, Wikipedia is a paper-thin resource. All tertiary sources are. It's useful when you're dealing with people who don't understand what a basic concept is, or the like. You wouldn't cite any encyclopedia in post-grad work, unless what you were researching was encyclopedia methodology and systems.

Not using tertiary sources and instead relying on secondary and, in grad level research and beyond increasingly, primary sources is what post-secondary level research focuses on. Using encyclopedias like wikipedia stops being acceptable in high school.

This has nothing to do with the quality of the source itself, it has to do with it being tertiary in nature, reporting their account of someone else's account of primary research.

Just one of many academic sources on this; http://www.lib.vt.edu/help/research/...-tertiary.html

[Annoying]

Recommendations like that at the post-grad level is so incredibly lazy. And dangerous, in that they're declaring that any source Wikipedia links to is to be considered "tainted", for some godforsaken reason.

Particularly considering that there's a huge amount of sources on wiki that are primary sources in and of themselves.

[Forogil]

Wikipedia has become increasingly biased and less and less useful. I stopped having any faith in it when the article about "the number of deaths caused by communism" got a counter article about "the number of deaths caused by capitalism", and the latter promptly got deleted.

Any source of knowledge that refuses knowledge that doesn't fit with their preferred world view isn't worth shit.

Did you consider that they are right - and you just refuse knowledge that doesn't fit your preferred world view?

[Jotaux]

This is about the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. The author is upset about how the mods at Wikipedia meddle with what he sees as accurate content.

I see the mods at Wikipedia as editors, all good content writers have editors in the commercial world. The editors or mods in this case are there to insure not only accuracy but style too so that one article fits in with the rest.

Far as I know Wikipedia mods are volunteers working for free, we should cut them some slack.

Jimmy Whales, the co founder of Wikipedia has stated that facts are not what makes it into an article but popular opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you consider that they are right - and you just refuse knowledge that doesn't fit your preferred world view?

Well if they are deleting those articles they aren't really offering knowledge for that person to refuse...

[Forogil]

Well if they are deleting those articles they aren't really offering knowledge for that person to refuse...

Did the articles contain knowledge with proper references, with proper references. Or just added so that people wouldn't be offended?

[Deleted]

But these documents and proofs have been translated and re-interpreted so many times (from questionable sources to begin with) that they can hardly be called fact. History is mostly just one giant game of Chinese Whispers, loosely backed by whatever Science can scrounge up.

I mean, we still teach in schools that Hitler offed himself with a cyanide pill when there is about as much evidence of that as there is of Elvis being cryoconserved in some capsule bound for the moon.

I have no idea why you'd bring "Where Elvis is buried?" into an history class, or other quirky notions you believe are "history".

Gossip, that's what you seems to have in your mind - and then you should use Wikipedia, you'll find plenty of that there.

[Deleted]

That article made me cringe.

"Why doesn't the world worship anime as much as I do?"

Go away, weeb.

Does it Trigger you too much? Perhaps NGE has too many nude ladies for you.

[Jotaux]

Did the articles contain knowledge with proper references, with proper references. Or just added so that people wouldn't be offended?

Either way your comment on that poster refusing knowledge has nothing to do with what he said and really is just you flaming that poster since he didn't refuse any knowledge.

[Forogil]

Either way your comment on that poster refusing knowledge has nothing to do with what he said and really is just you flaming that poster since he didn't refuse any knowledge.

Wrong in every way.

It was basically a direct quote from the poster; and I just turned the question and asked if instead of dismissing Wikipedia based on the articles he/she considered the possibility that the articles were right. So instead of Wikipedia dismissing facts contrary to their world-view it could be that the poster committed the same fallacy.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Once upon a time, Wikipedia was built around the idea that people should share their idea. The sum of these, contradictory or not, would create the single biggest encyclopedia ever created.

Forward a few years and it's the reverse. Wikipedia used to be taught by us. Today, it is being manipulated to teach us whatever it is that the groupthink want us to know.

[Jotaux]

Wrong in every way.

It was basically a direct quote from the poster; and I just turned the question and asked if instead of dismissing Wikipedia based on the articles he/she considered the possibility that the articles were right. So instead of Wikipedia dismissing facts contrary to their world-view it could be that the poster committed the same fallacy.

You asked if they considered that wikipedia was right and that he refused knowledge yet its apparent from his post that he did not refuse knowledge as it was taken away. No where in his post did the poster say that he didn't believe the deaths by communism was false. The only reason to ask that would be so you could flame them.

[Djriff]

I use Wikipedia as a source to find other sources and cross reference stuff. For my college work i'll use scholar.google, citations already built in and verified = easy mode.

[Venant]

Did you consider that they are right - and you just refuse knowledge that doesn't fit your preferred world view?

Well clearly that explains why you can have a 10 year old article with less than 50 edits in 10 years, and suddenly the issue becomes a relevant political topic and you see hundreds of edits crammed in in the space of a few weeks.

Look at how information on wikipedia was recently manipulated in an attempt to cover the trail of those attempting to frame Julian Assange with bribery and pedophilia charges.

[Forogil]

You asked if they considered that wikipedia was right and that he refused knowledge yet its apparent from his post that he did not refuse knowledge as it was taken away.

It was about the possible knowledge that the counter-article "deaths by capitalism" was an inaccurate article with likely inflated numbers.

My question wasn't whether that is the case - but whether the poster considered that possibility; or just dismissed Wikipedia - without even considering that possibility.

[Jotaux]

It was about the possible knowledge that the counter-article "deaths by capitalism" was an inaccurate article with likely inflated numbers?

My question wasn't whether that is the case - but whether the poster considered that possibility; or just dismissed Wikipedia - without even considering that possibility.

If it was then there would still be no reason to say they refused knowledge. And I think it would be highly unlikely no deaths have happened due to capitalism, pretty unlikely that any economic system would not result in deaths of some kind.

[Forogil]

If it was then there would still be no reason to say they refused knowledge. And I think it would be highly unlikely no deaths have happened due to capitalism, pretty unlikely that any economic system would not result in deaths of some kind.

The article was likely deleted, since it was deemed inaccurate with inflated numbers.

Currently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_k..._mass_killings instead states:

Rosefielde also notes that "while it is fashionable to mitigate the Red Holocaust by observing that capitalism killed millions of colonials in the twentieth century, primarily through man-made famines, no inventory of such felonious negligent homicides comes close to the Red Holocaust total."

I'm not arguing whether this is right or wrong - but whether the poster considered the possibility that it could be right, and the counter-list deleted because it was simply inaccurate.

Assuming that the statement is correct - no relevant knowledge was deleted. That doesn't imply that every article is correct.

[Jotaux]

The article was likely deleted, since it was deemed inaccurate with inflated numbers.

Currently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_k..._mass_killings instead states:

I'm not arguing whether this is right or wrong - but whether the poster considered the possibility that it could be right, and the counter-list deleted because it was simply inaccurate.

Assuming that the statement is correct - no relevant knowledge was deleted.

Which again would not indicate a refusal of knowledge on the poster's part.

[Forogil]

Which again would not indicate a refusal of knowledge on the poster's part.

Once again: it would - specifically the fact that the article was removed since it is was inaccurate.

Or you mean that the poster thought that an inaccurate article was removed - and thus rejected Wikipedia as a source since "Any source of knowledge that refuses knowledge that doesn't fit with their preferred world view isn't worth shit."?

Note: I am not saying that it is necessarily the case - just that it should be considered.

[jimboa24]

They won't accept it as a source because, by its nature, it's a tertiary source. They also won't accept the Encyclopedia Britannica for the same reason; it has nothing to do with reliability.

Actually, that's incorrect. Encyclopedias (until their demise about a decade ago) were long accepted as sources of research in universities and colleges. I know because I referenced one for a term paper at a University I attended some years ago. Encyclopedias back in the day were always considered reliable sources of information and there's even a specific MLA format for citing them as opposed to regular books.

Wikipedia, however, has never been acceptable to cite at any major university as far as I'm aware. The very fact that anyone can edit it at any time makes it untrustworthy. What it's good for is a starting place for research. If I'm looking for sources to cite, yes, I do go to Wikipedia first, but I try not to cite articles. Instead I look for the sources cited within the articles and go for those. THOSE are the real sources.

[Jotaux]

Once again: it would - specifically the fact that the article was removed since it is was inaccurate.

Or you mean that the poster thought that an inaccurate article was removed - and thus rejected Wikipedia as a source since "Any source of knowledge that refuses knowledge that doesn't fit with their preferred world view isn't worth shit."?

Note: I am not saying that it is necessarily the case - just that it should be considered.

Again, that is not a refusal of knwledge on the posters part, unless he had some issue with the deaths by communism article. I don't know why you are struggling with this concept other than to flame that poster.