Wikipedia: You Still Can't Trust It | Hacker News Reader

Wikipedia: You Still Can't Trust It

pcmag.com

6 pointskingsidharth8 comments

Ah, another article that doesn't even understand how Wikipedia functions (doesn't know how to check the history of an article, seems to think that you need the Watchlist for that), never mind how it works. There are certainly sensible complaints that can be made about Wikipedia, but this article is still living in 2004.

Wikipedia is at least as accurate as any other encyclopedia, but unlike his Britannica example, when it's not, you can actually do something about it.

And the Microsoft complaint is just bizarre. Calling it (and not just Apple, but also Oracle, and GE, and, well, pretty much every, erm, American multinational corporation) an American multinational corporation is a simple statement of fact that's not in the least sinister! And to expect the Microsoft article to not highlight that they'd been found guilty of significant anti-trust violations in the US and EU would be much more biased than to include it.

This isn't even a good hatchet-job.

We definitely used to use wikipedia in law school while in class to compliment professors' lectures; it was pretty common practice, not to mention its invaluable help in studying for exams. Although certainly not citable as any primary, secondary, or even tertiary authority, it's definitely a valid starting point to say the least.

And hey: it's the only encyclopedia in the world that has been at least somewhat translated into Klingon :) That's gotta count for something :)

Er, do you mean "complement"?

<embarrassed>I do, thank you. :)</embarrassed>

I always found the fact that Wikipedia doesnt exactly assure you of having discovered final, exact truth absolutely delighting ;-)

Maybe we will see the cultural influence of this 'negotiation' 10 or 20 years from now. It must have some kind of influence that all kids in the last few years have learned that actually all knowledge is fabricated by humans, rather than representing a historical or scientific truth. Not saying that there isn't one, but it makes the process of power and arguments that lead to a 'common sense' on any subject more transparent.

"There are always four sides to a story: your side, their side, the truth and what really happened."

He can reuse this article for Wikipedia's 20th birthday. That's efficiency!

I think I would place more credence in a Wikipedia article than I would in a PC Magazine article. Wikipedia is almost always on point, lucid, and timely. It is an amazing resource. But like any other source, it contains errors and so cannot always be considered authoritative.

Right, but of course that's the beauty of it, right? Communal editing (helps) ensures that most errors are short lived. I actually took the effort to edit an article once. It was on hearsay. There were some complicated nuances as between certain hearsay exceptions that the article was trying to clarify. I noticed some errors and confusing explanations, and set about spending a few hours figuring out how best to rewrite that section. Making the changes of course also helped me to learn it once and for all.

As they say, no better way to learn than to teach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com