Meanwhile, my cousin and her friend were listed as honorary citizens of our village for a few months.
“Yeah, did you read that on Wikipedia?”
Yes, I did.
Just like I used to read things at the library in the 90’s, and no-one would’ve thought to mock that. And one of the books I read was some Soviet scientists from the 50’s describing how spiritual auras work in real life.
Although that was in the 00’s I just didn’t have the internet all the time while in the army.
I once posted a Wikipedia article to r/TodayILearned, and my post went really popular. Someone a few hours later then edited the Wikipedia page to contradict my Reddit post title, reported my post to the subreddit mods, and my post got taken down.
Imagine being the level of asshole that would spend the time to do this. I’m not surprised, just…disappointed.
Why be disappointed. That’s more effort than most people go through on the internet. I’m actually impressed.
Reddit gonna reddit
Is that Wikipedia page accurate today?
I’m not sure. It was about the “turbo” button on 80s PCs, and how its function could be confusing to users depending on how it was wired. You look at the talk page and edit history there’s still a lot of arguments about this.
Most of the edits to try and say turbo is the slow mode were done by the one person, they seem to think they are right when all the evidence points to the contrary. I’m glad they seem to have given up for now.
Heh maybe you inspired them :p
Yeah unless the fact that the original Wikipedia article was grossly inaccurate in person that edited actually did edit it correctly then this sounds like a bullshit made up sorry. I mean not that it didn’t actually happen because that shit happens all the time. But if we compete I would have been edited and then had somebody report it within usually a few hours or so it would be removed and returned it back to the original state once it was verified false.
In university my entire dorm floor was in on insisting to my ex that it wasn’t “Big Bird”, but instead “Big Bert” (as opposed to regular sized bert)
It came up for the 100th time at a party, and I was like “go ahead, look it up” and was able to get in an edit JUST before the page load. “Big Bird (Or “Big Burt” for Canadian rebroadcast)”
It lasted for maybe 20 seconds, but it was all we needed.
Honestly I think it comes from a misunderstanding regarding secondary sources vs primary ones. Wikipedia, as well as encyclopedias and textbooks, are secondary sources. It’s not good practice to cite secondary sources without primary ones, but a lot of people (namely, teachers) don’t grasp why which leads these sources to get classified as bad.
That, plus Wikipedia is accessible without the usual gatekeeping and money behind what textbooks and encyclopedias have, which adds to the sources “credibility.” Money means marketing, including constant email campaigns targeting people like me trying to validate whatever textbook they’re peddling. (And in case you wonder if they’re evil, they sometimes offer kickbacks to adopt their expensive textbooks for my university classes).
Fedi users already get that, though, as that’s a common problem FOSS usually has. Point is, wiki lives in a weird place because no, you shouldn’t cite it just like you shouldn’t cite textbooks, but yes, it’s perfectly valid so long as you check those sources. And, speaking from experience, some students really don’t understand as I see citations for so much worse.
Wikipedia, as well as encyclopedias and textbooks, are secondary sources.
Oh, snap, it is so on!
Very clear.
Secondary examples include:
Dictionaries, Encyclopedias (also considered tertiary);
Tertiary examples include:
Dictionaries and Encyclopedias (also considered secondary);
They do have a handy table later though:
| Primary | diaries - world war |
| Secondary | biography - world war |
| Tertiary | encyclopedia - world war |
Wasn’t arguing I just posted the link to source from the wiki article like my teachers would have wanted 😜
Back when I was in school they outright censored Wikipedia. Fuck that shit
Same here, but everyone used it by…just citing the sources at the bottom of the page. It was honestly the dumbest logic ever. Professors telling you, you can’t use Wikipedia because anyone can edit it, but being ok with the literal source the Wikipedia article used for its info…just made zero sense.
deleted by creator
I’m on the fence about not citting primary sources. And especially in the sciences, where it’s actually the slow, boring, long process of many publications and many datat sets coming together to conclude something 'in the aggregate '. Like I’ll usually go to a review or meta analysis paper as a citation, because it’s combining and comparing the results across studies.
And really, a living document like Wikipedia is more like that kind of review or meta analysis paper.
I’m not disagreeing that were taught to go for primary sources, but in some ways, they’re actually less reliable than secondary sources if those secondary sources are taking in a a broader collection of primary sources, which something like Wikipedia is.
Actually, are you sure a meta analysis isn’t a primary source? Having worked on one in the past, you’re often having to reanalyze data and the finished product is quite unique.
Even “structured literature reviews” I think count as primary sources, since the author adds to the literature their own perspective and they are generally peer reviewed.
That said, when you cite things professionally, you will often have hundreds of sources. Most researchers, legal scholars, etc., just keep a database of their citations for easy callback. It’s important because at the upper levels, different authors might speak of the same objective findings in two different ways and with two different frameworks, so the aggregate loses that.
It’s not something non-professionals necessarily need to care about, but you do want to train undergraduates on that proper methods so they’re ready if and when they go to graduate school.
I agree that in general meta analysis stands apart, but I brought it up because it’s so often coupled with a deep review of material like a review article would hold. It’s also totally valid to cite a review article as a primary source, but I tend not to prefer this in my writing. My reasons for this are two fold, first, one of my memories was a curmudgeon who insisted on going all the way back through any chain if claims and citations to find, originally source, and reevaluate each claim. And, in doing so, regularly found irregularities and misattributed statements or just straight up mysteries of where the hell someone got something from. Its a pita, but it pays to be detail oriented when evaluating claims a domain has just accepted as table stakes.
This litterally happened to me recently where I was trying to figure out how this, fairly well known author had determined the functional form they were fitting to a curve. And like, three or four citations deep and a coffee with a colleague of theirs later, it turns out “they just made that shit up”.
Agreed, and a good literature review will dig up that chain. Although it won’t ever be perfectly accurate since the point is paraphrasing the literature to build a structure around what you’re doing, that doesn’t mean your secondary source understood the original (and their reviewers, who can very much be hit or miss).
And don’t get me started on authors misunderstanding quantitative data, haha. I haven’t been doing much academic research since my kids were born, but the number of “they made that shit up” cases were wild in education research. Like arbitrary spline models, misused propensity score matching, a SEM model with cherry picked factors, you name it.
… And this comment chain is way next level for this community. Hahaha
deleted by creator
Citing ChatGPT would definitely not be more accepted than Wikipedia anywhere. You may get away with it, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually accepted.
I guess it should be accepted in the sense that “my neighbour Bob” is a completely valid source, while at the same time being an utterly unreliable one.
People often confuse the two, but I think GPT falls in the same category as “pulled it out of my ass” in terms of reliability and citation validity.
Instead of listing the source on wiki, why not just use hard link and avoid wiki to being with?
The point of the lesson is to hide your tracks or show that you’re not completely lazy. Would you just list “library” as a source? They don’t care you use wiki, they care you incorrectly listing sources.
deleted by creator
Wikipedia pages are synopsis’s and have a viewpoint of the person writing them. You use wiki like a library to find the sources to use and cite.
Why would they suggest and tell you how to “cheat” the system? If you’re not smart enough to realize Wikipedia isn’t a source itself, you are exactly why this lesson needs to be done lmfao.
Wiki would be like asking the librarian what the book is about, then using them as the source, you realize how silly this sounds now yeah?
Ok, fine. I’m not critiquing their directive. Just saying what it was at the time. Ergo, I’m not making the news, just reporting it.
The point is that Wikipedia (in theory) doesn’t make any argument about anything. It simply mirrors or summarizes information. Using Wikipedia as a source is somewhat similar to listing “the notes I made during class” as your source. Your source list is not meant to simply list where you got the information from, but actually list the origin of that information.
It’s STILL like that. I’m sorry for explaining why they specifically do something.
You wouldn’t use the librarian as a source, but all the books she told you about can be listed. Then write what they said and see if they notice.
Same situation, different era.
but today citing ChatGPT
There is no way that’s true
I do not know about whatever institution the person above is talking about. However where I am at the moment you can use LLMs as a source, the citing of that is long and painful bit you could do it. I should note that it is heavily frowned upon by others to use generative ai, so most people I know use it as a summaryziation tool.
summarization, in case you ever need it in a crossword puzzle
Thank you <3
I’m not sure why this comment is downvoted, it’s not incorrect and also acknowledges that generative AI is a bad source.
Nearly every type of source, no matter how good it is, has an official way to cite it. There are even guidelines on citing in person conversations, social media posts, tiktoks, etc.
People are allowed to cite it, but that doesn’t mean they should be. Especially in an academic setting lol.
imo another big concern is that half the search results are now LLM slop. Someone might be trying to avoid generative AI and still end up citing a slop article that they didn’t realize was AI.
Sources:
https://guides.library.ubc.ca/GenAI/cite
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/personal-communications
Wikipedia is unreliable for politically controversial topics, I’ve seen multiple articles on the Gaza genocide with specific claims citing fucking Times of Israel with no other supporting evidence whatsoever, Times of Israel has been caught lying more than once and shouldn’t be used as a source at all. Each article is only as good as the sources cited and they’re not all equally well sourced, it is entirely possible to insert false info into articles especially if you’ve got a well funded organization behind the effort, and even if it is eventually caught and corrected it will already have served as useful propaganda for anyone reading the article in the interim.
Wikipedia is like the War Thunder forums on steriods minus the who leaking classified information.
Eh. It really depends on the topic. I am a Wikipedia addict and I would never tell anyone that Wikipedia should be used for anything beyond surface level familiarity. Ideally you start with Wikipedia then move on to better quality sources. The problem with Wikipedia isn’t necessarily inaccuracy, but lack of information and bias. I’m not talking about right wing conspiracies saying Wikipedia is too liberal, but rather I am talking about things in history where a specific view is presented and alternate views are not. This is especially common in situations where modern scholars are questioning historically mainstream views. I suspect this is because the editors simply aren’t aware of these developments and are accessing more available older sources, but it can bring in bias. This can also happen in science and engineering as well. Plus there is the classic Wikipedia problem where some random B list Marvel superhero or star wars extended universe side character has an extremely high quality Wikipedia page and a relatively important historical to figure has a very basic overview. Wikipedia is incredible and one of the greatest achievements of Humanity, but it’s got some flaws and I don’t think that it’s wrong to tell students not to rely on Wikipedia. It’s kind of like all the same issues with ChatGPT but way less severe and way more subtle.
Nah fuck this attitude, if you ever tried to use Wikipedia for an actual research project you’ll know how dubious those “”“sources”“” can be.
It’s actuslly an exercise one of my TA friends sets for students when they’re just learning to research things properly. She gives them a claim on Wikipedia and and asks them to find the primary source for it. So they end up spending hours following chains of citations, until they are checking out old books from the library to try and find excerpts that some blog post that was cited in a paper that was cited in a newspaper, that was cited in a different blog post that was cited in another news article that was cited by Wikipedia claims exists, just to find out it doesn’t.
But seriously, don’t take Wikipedia seriously unless it cites a primary source directly.
In this day and age, where newspapers will publish any bullshit dictated by their corporate / billionaire owners, and any idiot can publish a book, how do we know the sources themselves are even valid? Like just because it’s physically printed doesn’t make it any more true.
don’t take Wikipedia seriously unless it cites a primary source directly.
You’ll regularly find a link to a secondary source that contains a reference to a primary source. If you just want generically available historical, scientific, or broadly epistemological knowledge, its great. If you want an on-the-ground testimonial from an eye-witness, it may give you the start of a breadcrumb trail towards your destination.
That said, the bias endemic to Wikipedia is largely a product of its origins - primarily English, western media focused, heavily populated by editors from a handful of global north countries. If you want to learn about the history of a mayoralty in Saskatchewan going back to the 18th century, its a rich resource. If you want to find out the political valence of the major political parties of Nepal or Azerbaijan, you’ll find a much thinner resource.
Some of that is a consequence of the editors (or absence of them) around a particular topic. Some of that is a consequence of the moderators/admins graylisting or outright blacklisting sources. Newer sources - 404media, for instance - aren’t tracked while older sources that have changed management significantly and lost some of their trustworthiness - WSJ, CBS, National Geographic, as recent examples.
Anybody who thinks Wikipedia is bad should have grown up on encyclopedias. Looking back at my childhood set, they are hilariously riddled with errors.
Yes, but they have professional errors. Not those errors that could have been written by just about anyone.
People paid good money for those errors though! Not like those freeloading people doing it all for donations…
Right?! I’d rather have a bunch of autistic nerds patrolling their favorite subjects for stupid changes. Turns out that works pretty damned well.
I registered a domain and wrote an article to try to get a submission through. It worked for a few months, but was removed after that. Very vigilant.
No it generally makes sense to teach kids to not cite Wikipedia. Though it is consistently checked and updated you can look at the wiki link and drama for the Israeli genocide just to see a perfect example of why it shouldn’t be cited.
The great part of wikipedia is going to their actual resources ans reading and understanding those. What you were supposed to learn was HOW to research things and come to your own conclusions, not just how to cite information.
You shouldn’t cite wikipedia in a paper because it’s a tertiary source. Somehow that got lost in translation sometime in the 90s.
You shouldn’t cite any other encyclopedia either, because they’re “some guy” writing a paragraph or so about a thing. I think it was Britannica that Tolkein wrote a lot of the “W”'s for. I’m sure he did a great job, but it’s not exactly easy to fact check him either.
I think it would be reasonable to teach kids to look at Wikipedia to find sources.
It’s not enough to just find sources they have to learn how to critically read them.
No it generally makes sense to teach kids to not cite Wikipedia. Though it is consistently checked and updated you can look at the wiki link and drama for the Israeli genocide just to see a perfect example of why it shouldn’t be cited.
Wikipedia is generally terrible for anything that was politically controversial since Wikipedia has been a thing. A lot of why is very intentionally buried in layers of bureaucracy and wikilawyering to make it look like totally reasonable, neutral point of view decision making. One of the big routes to viewpoint control on Wikipedia is arguments about notoriety and what is or is not a “reliable source” and what sources are sufficient to discuss a topic.
You know what, I was gonna agree because last time I was googling some sikh history as a sikh it seemed to be driding the indian governement but looking at the articles now it has correct casualty estimates. I swear last time I looked it was framed like the government estimate for casualties at 83 killed 900 injured was accurate, now it frames it like how every news article not on wikipedia did with 10k deaths being the likely estimate.
I see no mention of israel tho, which is odd since operation blue star was an israeli trained operation, had the isreali flag as the symbol and name lol. I can’t find the older article from india celebrating the anniversary of them working together, training soldiers to massacre civilians, but its out there somewhere, times india 1990s or 2000s.
Maybe im not looking hard enough but youd think the country that trained the operation and has the operation (blue star) named after their flag would pop up more in the article.
Sidenote my grandpa left india shortly after that time working on a ship and was lost at sea for a bit. He was saved by an isdf vessel and they were apparently nice and bought him a first class ticket on the plane to his destination in america. Just a nice reminder that not all people anywhere are bad, just like america might seem like a hellscape but the average person here isn’t the vocal maga person you see online, they just clock in. We are sikh tho not muslim so maybe that would’ve had a different result.
deleted by creator
This is true for most articles, but anything to do with Israel, Palestine, or Zionism has been taken over by jihadists.
jihadists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
Arabic word that means “exerting”, “striving”, or “struggling”, particularly with a praiseworthy aim
Curious choice of words.
Upset that your hasbara bot edits got rejected?
The above comment brought to you by the Iranian Ministry of Propaganda
One of the core policies of Wikipedia, remaining from its inception, is neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
This fully applies to describing international conflicts and wars. If you find Wikipedia biased, there are two things you can do:
- Collect credible evidence, and suggest edits
- Check if you are biased yourself
I haven’t done it in a while, but I would make little edits to Republican political figures. If they “ended” or “stopped” a business. I change it to “aborted” the business.
Some they would fix, but not all of them.
