Comments on: What about Wiki?

By: Sonny Wayz

Sonny Wayz — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:54:27 +0000

Wiki doesn’t seem as bad as it used to be. Unfortunately, I think that’s because the legacy media has gotten much worse.

By: Cappy

Cappy — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 14:00:52 +0000

This has been Wiki unpersoned: https://thepeoplescube.com/

By: Mike K

Mike K — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 13:08:24 +0000

I do not trust Wikipedia for anything that has a political tinge.

I do trust it for basic facts that cannot be twisted to serve a political agenda.

Exactly. I have been reading a series of novels on 19th and 18th century British military and economic history. I keep running to Wiki to check his facts and all are right there. It’s useless on any modern political issue.

By: George Crosley

George Crosley — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 08:40:06 +0000

You mean you used to “subscribe” to that view. Ascribe means attribute.

By: Collins

Collins — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 07:19:33 +0000

Gell Mann amnesia. I trust wiki for birth/death dates, and that’s about it. The citation in Wiki, about Gell Mann Amnesia, was wrong, for quite a long time.

By: docweasel

docweasel — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 07:17:51 +0000

For pop culture, it’s pretty damn good. I often look it up for its movie synopses when I’m watching a movie and can’t figure out what’s going on. For bands, songs, albums it will tell you the sum total of what has been said about these subjects, on the net, anyway. For old TV shows or video games, ditto.

It’s not definitive on sports subjects, but it’s pretty good.

But for politics, obsessive left wing admins have scrubbed all leftist politicans’ profiles of any negative information and larded up conservatives with fake news. Any political issue, including science and history, will lean so far left as to be a parody. There is no balance at all. It’s worse than a Wash Post fact check.

So, there you have it. Good for pop culture, useless for anything remotely political.

By: miklos000rosza

miklos000rosza — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 03:54:03 +0000

I somehow end up rarely using it.

By: huxley

huxley — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 00:27:33 +0000

The problem is that, increasingly, there isn’t one single thing–no matter how innocuous or seemingly “neutral”– that doesn’t, somehow or the other, fall under the foul, spreading penumbra of something that is, for the Left, “political.”

Snow on Pines: Too true.

One of the best Brexit arguments was that the EU is always a “work in progress” but moving only to the left and towards more centralized power. Maybe the EU is OK enough now, but who knows how much further it goes tomorrow.

By: The Switchel Philosopher

The Switchel Philosopher — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 00:23:03 +0000

I use Wikipedia a lot, but carefully. I agree with many of the comments here: it’s good for noncontroversial topics, and sometimes even for links on controversial topics. If in doubt, check the footnotes.

I recently wrote about misinformation in the Wikipedia article about Smugglers Notch in my town in Vermont:

https://switchelphilosopher.blog/2019/07/29/a-wikipedia-story/

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 00:07:57 +0000

If you want learn about a mathematical topic or some pop culture figure, wikipedia is fine. Not so much for political topics like global warming and such. I use wikipedia all the time with the caveat that it cannot be trusted on some topics. You can sometimes tell if some comment to make someone or something look has been inserted, as it often doesn't fit in smoothly with the rest of the writing. For an example of what looks like bias, see the article on Richard Lindzen when it comes to the subject of climate change.