FiftySeven
Community Member
- MBTI
- infj
- Enneagram
- ?
somehow I find the wikipedia talk pages where authors discuss validity of sources, a sounder source of information and credibility checking than some guy in North Dakota posting papers by convicted fraudsters
Wikipedia is beloved for its up-to-date information, but that can also be misleading... According to research conducted over the years — including a scientific study published by the journal Nature in 2005 and a report commissioned by the site's Wikimedia Foundation in 2012 — ...quality must be gauged by individual indicators.... a large number of contributors alone do not necessarily translate to quality content. An article that was initially "researched in detail" and factually sound would not always benefit from several changes and addenda. Moreover, it is not easy to rapidly call up the number of authors in every language version...
Wikipedia's 'many authors'
Poor spelling and grammar can be signs that an entry is substandard...users should pay attention to whether an article is neutral or expresses an opinion, and whether it provides a broad overview and presents different perspectives. ....Users should be on the lookout for contradictions and should always check the sources, ....important that quotations be referenced and that users check the sources. "It makes sense to simply click on the links,".... use Wikipedia to get a general overview of a subject, but "this doesn't mean ...a final answer." ..."Users have to remember that Wikipedia is a site used by many authors," ..."and it is possible to modify things quickly."
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-as-wikipedia-turns-20-how-credible-is-it/a-56228222