Comment by IncRnd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by IncRnd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm glad you posted that information, because it really shows that random online information can often be wrong or conflict with other online authorities. Here are two quotes from an article that was posted 10 years after your link. [1]

  "There has been lots of research on the accuracy of Wikipedia, and the results
  are mixed—some studies show it is just as good as the experts, others show
  [that] Wikipedia is not accurate at all."

and later in that article

  They found that in general, Wikipedia articles were more biased—with 73
  percent of them containing code words, compared to just 34 percent in
  Britannica.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/...

> code words

I'm not sure that's a great measure of bias. It's easy to write in an unbiased tone, yet still be biased.

Further, unbiased articles may easily contain biased words. Especially since Wikipedia is an international projects, the articles describe multiple points of view, and the "code words" of the research were terms such as the following: "tax breaks, minimum wage, fuel efficiency [--] death tax, border security, war on terror".

Bias is not the same thing as being correct or incorrect.

That is some seriously selective quoting. The next sentence says the code word count is due to Wikipedia having longer articles.

That some false paraphrasing. No it does not say that in the next sentence.

However, you just made my point, which is that, "random online information can often be wrong or conflict with other online authorities."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com