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?

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    17·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • sbeak@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      9·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • TheFogan@programming.devEnglish
        1·
        11 hours ago

        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.