No, this isn’t a case of different people having different opinions about different ways to obtain information during different times. More often than not, I find that the SAME people who act like Wikipedia is the most unreliable thing on Earth unironically trust the FIRST Google Search result they see, as well as everything they’ve ever seen in ChatGPT.
Need I remind you that Google is LITERALLY designed to cater to your biases? And it’s gotten WORSE because the first result you see is NOW AI-Generated. Also, Google is not a source! And AI Chatbots cite THEMSELVES as sources!
Wikipedia on the other hand is curated by REAL VOLUNTEER HUMANS who strive to be accurate as possible. I’m aware that Wikipedia is no stranger to agendas or vandalism, but these editors are quick and dedicated to be as accurate as possible. So much so that whenever a building is on fire, they LITERALLY label it as “Status: Burning”. Not burned… BURNING! Meanwhile, Google tells you to put glue on your pizza…
And yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a source. Like Google, Wikipedia is a GATEWAY to sources, and not a source in and of itself. But at the very least, Wikipedia DOESN’T try to give you what you will like, because you’ll get what is (most likely) the truth instead, backed up by several CREDIBLE sources that are constantly fact-checked by volunteer humans.
So why do people hate Wikipedia so much? And why do these SAME PEOPLE cite Google and ChatGPT as a source?
I consider Wikipedia one of the best sources out there, mainly because they have their own sources listed below each article. You can verify everything. Anyone calling them a bad source is misinformed or acting with malicious intent.
They’re a bad source as they don’t actually vet sources in any objective way, they just require them. There are breitbart articles on some wikipedia pages.
This has resulted in what should be a neutral information site usually having a bias towards western and especially American propaganda points.
Ah I didn’t know that
I’ve never had this happen to me.
Nobody has.
Nobody’s ever gotten mad at me for using wikipedia. Does this happen anywhere specific?
Can you confirm that there’s non insignificant group of people who claim both of those things are true?
In my opinion, these people aren’t thinking deeply. They had it hammered to them in school that wikipedia isn’t a valid source and so they’ve internalized that, but nobody properly explained to them that AI isn’t a valid source
You know some strange people.
I really want to know more about these specific people you’ve run into this with, particularly age, education level, and maybe political affliations (curious if it runs the gamut or not).
For my part, Wikipedia’s usually a good starting point ‘source’, like an encyclopedia would be. But the actual sources referenced by a given article, carefully evaluated, are much better. A Google Search (once you scroll past the AI summary) can also yield good sources. I don’t bother with LLMs at all, too many issues with accuracy.
End of the day, these are all signposts to actual sources, not sources themselves. What you find through any of them need to be evaluated by where they are getting their information. It also depends on the topic and level of discussion. I’m personally OK with quoting Wikipedia about a general piece of trivia, but if I’m trying to make a serious argument about something it’d be silly to rely on it if I don’t know how strong the source behind it is. Could be well-researched and rock solid, could be bullshit with a flimsy reference no one’s caught yet.
Wikipedia is useful for having a topic explained in layman’s terms
I know not a single person who hates Wikipedia.
You wanna hear ironic? My dad got me to install GrapheneOS on his Pixel because google was trying to get him to activate the AI. Now dad is using the google search. I explained its all AI junk “but its easy” is his reply.
Subtle difference between on-device services that hoover up every conceivable data point VS a search assistant
Very few do. There’s your answer
I have literally never encountered anyone who got mad at me for using Wikipedia. There are certain people who will still repeat what they learnt about it in school 20 years ago when they were told “don’t use Wikipedia as a source” and then they stopped listening. But even those people see the benefits.
See the thing is tons of exhausted teachers just keep teaching the same shit every year; many of them teach the stuff they learned when they were in school. So a crazy number of them do in fact still teach kids that Wikipedia can’t be trusted because anyone can edit it
Yeah, this is the answer. Lots of grade school teachers don’t continue learning because they were perfectly happy to just believe that nothing changes and they are the ones in a class that know stuff and their students don’t. You’ve had these teachers and they got mad at your questions when their answers conflicted. You know the ones. They say don’t quote wikipedia still
But Wikipedia can’t be trusted as a source. It’s great for overviews of topics and for listing out many other potentially valid sources in the reference list at the end of every article. If you’re writing a paper though, you should never actually cite Wikipedia
I agree. You don’t use it as a source in an academic paper, just like you shouldn’t be using an encyclopedia. It’s still way better than listing Chat GPT as a source, but the quality of your sources matter in that setting.
It’s an incredible resource though and great jumping off point for research. It’s so much bigger than any normal encyclopedia, and from what ive heard it’s usually more accurate than a traditional encyclopedia (do they still exist?), despite anyone being able to edit it. It’s a source for winning an argument with a friend, not for academic papers (the sources listed on the Wikipedia article are often good). Expect to be called out on it if you cite it.
There’s many issues with academic journals and one could argue Wikipedia is actually better for evading those traps, but your prof isn’t going to see it that way and you’ll lose marks for using a bad source
Wikipedia has quite strict rules on who cam edit what, and what can be changed, especially on major articles.
Besides, you follow the sources the Wikipedia article uses and cite those things. Not cite Wikipedia itself
Besides, you follow the sources the Wikipedia article uses and cite those things. Not cite Wikipedia itself
That’s literally what I said lol
Tankies think Wikipedia is western liberal CIA-funded propaganda.
Show them articles on the genocides in Ukraine or the Chinese genocide of Uyghurs and them lose their minds.
They’ll happily use it for things that paint any of their chosen “western” countries in a negative way while happily ignoring any that do the same for their obsession countries. It’s totally not hypocritical.
This isn’t really a question this is more like a rant with a question mark
Years of “Wikipedia is not a source” without critically thinking about what that means or when to apply it. The same people who will say that will ignore that it was meant for research papers, but somehow forgot what makes sources credible. It’s really a suffering from success thing. The phrase was just said so often it became part of people’s thoughts. Sort of like the “five dollar footlong” thing with Subway.
First… are the people bringing this up really into social media? Or conservative, by chance?
There’s three potentially confused things:
-
Oldschool “Wikipedia isn’t a primary source.” I learned this in middle school. It’s technically true.
-
There’s slightly newer accusations of a liberal Wikipedia bias. Hence the attempt to create Conservapedia. There’s a tiny nugget of truth, perhaps, but not to the outrageous extent suggested.
-
THEN there are modern attempts to discredit Wikipedia as a whole. Mind my tinfoil hat, but I’d argue it’s largely algorithmic and Big Tech driven, as it’s a high profile information source they cannot control, a place where things are documented they don’t necessarily want in the limelight.
There’s some overlap too, like Musk’s motivations, rants, and actions falling into category 2 and 3. Or some hijacking of point 1.
One point 1, the academics have gone real quiet about that in the face of the modern information apocalypse. It’s still true, but it’s like complaining about rain while drowning in a tsunami. The pot-stirrers lost point 2.
…And Big Tech is gonna win on point 3.
They control everyone’s information bubble now. They can make people distrust Wikipedia, as you have seen with your own eyes.
liberal Wikipedia bias
Well of course, the wiki that supports free access to information is more often than not contributed by people who support that. But that is a very slight bias, and you’re pretty messed in the head if you believe that information should inherently be restricted to a certain group of people.
Unfortunately the biggest part is, there’s kind of 2 definitions of bias at this point.
There’s the older, what I’d consider should be the truer form where bias is about taking a side or leaning the interpretation of the established facts on things that don’t have a 100% perfect consistant answer. IE Sportsball team A is better than sportsball team B, when obviously every part of that equasion is a dynamic, every player has good and bad days. good and bad weather conditions etc… who they’ve played against and how good they are etc…
Same for political concepts where at the very least it’s worth noting there’s no agreed upon by all of political science good and bad with regards to ideas etc…
Then you’ve got the type B bias where… well one side is outright denying the objective facts. Going to the sportsball analogy, that’s like one side says “Team A won 900 to 0 against team B”, while fans of team B go “look the game’s score is right here… team b won 52-20”. and they call you bias for trusting the sportsball leagues official scores, and the game that aired on national television, over the word of team A’s number one fan.
Reality has a left wing bias.
-
I had a teacher forbidding Wikipedia as a study source and a class formed by over 80 students quietly aquiesced. It took one question of why wasn’t Wikipedia a valid source for general context to help in forming a broad stroke idea on a subject to nearly make the teacher go into a fit on how it was inacurate and unproperly revised. Wich was not the point.
To say you can’t look at it at all is so insane, and his would you even prove it? The entire point of encyclopedias is to give you a brief overview of a new topic.
My personal take?
Funneling.
This was a class on Social Psychology and even the books for the class were not to be read in full. Instead, only excerpts were to be consulted.
That creates a huge context gap. Drills in narrow concepts. Does not foster thinking and relation of concepts and ideas.
The teacher was creating a low effort class, easily manageable, with little to no opposition to her methods and ideas.
