←back to thread

136 points xnx | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
sfx77[dead post] ◴[] No.43708596[source]
[flagged]
1. jvanderbot ◴[] No.43708608[source]
Could you be more specific? For almost all things Wikipedia has reasonably up to date information.
replies(1): >>43709086 #
2. 9rx ◴[] No.43709086[source]
Except, surprisingly, on the one topic you know very well. Then it is outdated, misleading, or even incorrect. But, hey, at least the rest is in great shape!
replies(2): >>43709247 #>>43709260 #
3. mcv ◴[] No.43709247[source]
That is true for any source of information. It's true for even the highest quality newspapers. It's certainly true for other encyclopedias. It's even true for scientific papers. There's always something they're wrong about. The big question is whether there's a process to fix mistakes, and whether there are perverse incentives to spread incorrect information.
4. InsideOutSanta ◴[] No.43709260[source]
This hasn't been true in my experience. I find very few examples of Wikipedia being downright wrong. Less popular pages can get outdated, but that is to be expected. Reasonably popular pages are often updated within minutes when news occurs, or new discoveries are made.

If you look up controversial topics, you also have the option of looking at the discussion or edit history to get a grasp of where the disagreements are.

When I made simple, objective, anonymous contributions, they were usually also accepted.

People seem unreasonably upset with Wikipedia for reasons unclear to me. Despite all the political pressure it constantly receives, it's a great resource that has largely stuck to its mission of creating a free, verifiable, neutral encyclopedia. It's probably the best thing the web has created.

replies(1): >>43709280 #
5. 9rx ◴[] No.43709280{3}[source]
> People seem unreasonably upset with Wikipedia for reasons unclear to me.

Like who? I've never met anyone who has been upset with Wikipedia. I don't suppose the vast majority of people I know ever think about Wikipedia at all. I expect some of them don't even know what Wikipedia is.

I might buy "a person I once encountered was upset with Wikipedia one time". Stranger things have happened. But as a trend across people...?

replies(1): >>43709289 #
6. InsideOutSanta ◴[] No.43709289{4}[source]
Well, like you. Why else would you post such a sarcastic comment?
replies(1): >>43709326 #
7. 9rx ◴[] No.43709326{5}[source]
Like me? I am quite visibly a computer. How did you manage to mistake my form as being a person?
replies(1): >>43709399 #
8. InsideOutSanta ◴[] No.43709399{6}[source]
Perhaps the entity at the root of this thread is not a computer? Either way, I don't quite understand how I got involved in this peculiar discussion, and I don't wish to continue it. Enjoy your bits.
replies(1): >>43709428 #
9. 9rx ◴[] No.43709428{7}[source]
Perhaps. But,

1. People usually have distinct characteristics (e.g. eyes, nose mouth arranged in a certain way), so there is rarely confusion as to whether or not something is a person. What has cast your doubt?

2. Nothing, person, computer, or otherwise is upset with Wikipedia in this thread. I suspect that, emphasized by the non-response, nothing has ever been upset with Wikipedia in any time or place. What would there be to be upset about, even if only theoretically?