no banana@piefed.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-213 hours agoWikipeter founded the website in 1993 when he wanted to know more about model trains without having to visit the library media.piefed.worldimagemessage-square103fedilinkarrow-up1960
arrow-up1960imageWikipeter founded the website in 1993 when he wanted to know more about model trains without having to visit the library media.piefed.worldno banana@piefed.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-213 hours agomessage-square103fedilink
minus-squareHudell@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up75·12 hours agoBtw this is not an argument against Wikipedia in any way.
minus-squareZorcron@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·7 hours agoHow 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-up14·7 hours agoBecause there are mistakes anywhere. Wikipedia gives you the tools to easily verify what you’re reading.
minus-squareZorcron@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·7 hours agoOkay, 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-up8·6 hours agoPretty 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-up4·5 hours agoI just meant that the intention behind my comment was not to attack Wikipedia in general.
minus-squareZorcron@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·3 hours agoOh, you know, I didn’t even realize you replied to yourself.
Btw this is not an argument against Wikipedia in any way.
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.