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?

  • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
    7·
    16 hours ago

    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.