Do you trust Wikipedia?

Do you trust Wikipedia?

  • Yes

    Votes: 128 47.2%

  • No

    Votes: 78 28.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 24.0%
  • Total voters
    271
Certainly not when it comes to contentious matters like politics and wars. It's absolutely alligned with Establishment Democrat narratives in that regard. Its founders recently conceded that over time Wikipedia had effectively been hijacked by special interests. Started out as a good idea, but inevitably when something has the power to influence millions of people's minds, it gets taken over by the powers that be, intelligence agencies, etc.

Probably still fine for sports stats and that sort of thing.
 
Neuk_ said:
Wiki once had Carl Niehaus listed as a **** and disgrace to the human race which is fairly accurate in my books.
Click to expand...
The fact that they removed it again shows Wikipedia is sensored or can be manipulated, so that's why I don't trust them, it's just a collection of everyone's opinion at the time that can be veto'd..
 
Ja, und nein.
Depends on the topic, for technical stuff like HDMI standards or i2c, etc. yes. Stay out of the political pages and topics of Wikipedia. Carl Niehaus's Wiki page is a good example on why Wikipedia is bad for politics.

Who remembers Dugeot's Mieliestronk? Still going strong, I see.. since 2001! It seems that the site was around 10 years old when the webmaster transferred it over to Media24. (December 2011)
 
When doing research I find it to be a nice digestible summary or overview on the subject.
I then go and do further proper research from more reliable sources
 
Its a great TL;DR source of information.

I like historical subject matter, so Wikipedia is awesome in that it gives you a foundational understanding of a vast array of topics.
 
Last edited:
For technical subjects mostly yes. For opinionated ones no as it still says
"During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[19][20] Such claims are not backed by trustable scientific evidence.[21][22]"
 
I have to say Other because I trust it for well-researched topics, especially when I have some knowledge of the subject but want wider breadth of information. Opionions and political topics are no better (or worse) than on other "solid" fora and here I don't necessarily trust it without independent checking myself.
 
I think a lot of people miss the point of Wikipedia.

If you stop using it as an end in and of itself but rather as means to read further, i.e.: you are focused not on the Wiki article but rather the often numerous citations as a means of reading further and then drawing your own conclusions, then you can start to see the value of it.

It's a great pillar of the modern web and one that very closely reflects the aspirations of the early internet. It is a shame that conservatives have sought to poison the well, especially considering their tendency to distrust official channels. You would think that a crowdsourced knowledge base is the perfect answer.
 
SlinkyMike said:
I think a lot of people miss the point of Wikipedia.

If you stop using it as an end in and of itself but rather as means to read further, i.e.: you are focused not on the Wiki article but rather the often numerous citations as a means of reading further and then drawing your own conclusions, then you can start to see the value of it.

It's a great pillar of the modern web and one that very closely reflects the aspirations of the early internet. It is a shame that conservatives have sought to poison the well, especially considering their tendency to distrust official channels. You would think that a crowdsourced knowledge base is the perfect answer.
Click to expand...
When it comes to politics and war, Wikipedia is corrupted. A good example would be in relation to the Syrian dirty war where Western journalists like Eva Barlett and Vanessa Beeley (who have actually lived in Syria and reported from there) get labelled as "conspiracy thorists" for publishing the facts. Wikipedia has notorious "editors" eg. 'Philip Cross' and 'BobfromBrockley' who go in and smear anybody who contradicts the official US State Department narrative.
 
buchanan8 said:
When it comes to politics and war, Wikipedia is corrupted. A good example would be in relation to the Syrian dirty war where Western journalists like Eva Barlett and Vanessa Beeley (who have actually lived in Syria and reported from there) get labelled as "conspiracy thorists" for publishing the facts. Wikipedia has notorious "editors" eg. 'Philip Cross' and 'BobfromBrockley' who go in and smear anybody who contradicts the official US State Department narrative.
Click to expand...
Yep. Aware of these issues but I'm sticking to my guns wrt citations and doing your own research. The controversies you are referring to exist in the 'top layer' of Wikipedia, i.e.: the articles themselves, but it is far less likely that all the cited sources all have similar interference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X