Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Wikipedia: 20 years of information sharing

Recommended Posts

Still Waters
Quote

On 15 January 2001, two American entrepreneurs - Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger - launched an online encyclopedia.

It was called Wikipedia. Despite much criticism early on about inaccuracies, it has gone on to be hugely successful.

It is the 15th most popular destination on the web, is available in more than 300 languages and is maintained by a community of volunteer editors.

It is where everyone from students, to politicians to yes, journalists, turn for a quick briefing on any subject, although even Wikipedia says it should not be used as a primary source.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55667711

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Dreamer screamer

Now I wouldn't trust wiki so much as I have seen how the truth is well hidden and distorted to stop the real truth from coming out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

Oh how all my teachers hated you ^_^ lol

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Oh how all my teachers hated you ^_^ lol

Explains the state of the world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
1 minute ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Explains the state of the world...

The bottom of every wikipedia article references all it's sources.

Just because it doesn't agree with your conspiracies does not mean it's false.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1

I don't trust Wikipedia any farther than I can throw it when it comes to any subject related to the paranormal. One of the founders Jimmy Wales is an atheist and has given reign to a group called Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia. They are self-described activist skeptics and edit articles with a materialist-atheist bias. People have seen articles edited overnight to have an anti-paranormal bias. Try finding a positive article on any parapsychologist or paranormal figure.

Many on the internet are out there complaining about this non-balanced editing.

Skeptical about Skeptics on Wikipedia

 

I actually use Wikipedia quite a bit on non-paranormal subjects though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TigerBright19

Who moderates and fact checks Wikipedia?  I understand they provide sources for their information at the bottom of each page, but what if those sources are themselves inaccurate and biased?  I believe Wiki can't be accountable for that, but if the sources they use are later found to be inaccurate or contain misleading information, then they should do a custom check on their sources every few years just to make sure they are still valid.

 

Edited by TigerBright19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

@Dreamer screamer @papageorge1 @TigerBright19 if you don’t understand the purpose or usefulness of Wikipedia, or are too biased to see it, then that’s on you.

Yes it can be abused to an extent, but the information is usually sound.

Wikipedia is a good place to start if you’re looking for information, then you dig deeper and verify what you have to, if there’s a need for it.

But if you prefer; I’ve got a set of Funk & Wagnalls you could borrow, currently in the storage cage sentimentally collecting dust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
8 minutes ago, Timothy said:

@Dreamer screamer @papageorge1 @TigerBright19 if you don’t understand the purpose or usefulness of Wikipedia, or are too biased to see it, then that’s on you.

Yes it can be abused to an extent, but the information is usually sound.

Wikipedia is a good place to start if you’re looking for information, then you dig deeper and verify what you have to, if there’s a need for it.

But if you prefer; I’ve got a set of Funk & Wagnalls you could borrow, currently in the storage cage sentimentally collecting dust?

The problem comes when one activist group be they a Political Party, Christian, Atheist or whatever forms a team to make their viewpoint prominent in the articles as opposed to presenting a balanced article on controversial subjects. They will of course claim 'they are just presenting the facts'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The problem comes when one activist group be they a Political Party, Christian, Atheist or whatever forms a team to make their viewpoint prominent in the articles as opposed to presenting a balanced article on controversial subjects. They will of course claim 'they are just presenting the facts'.  

Provide a specific legitimate example and we can look into it.

Like i said, it can be abused to an extent, but the information is usually sound.

And that can basically be said for anything n in life Papa. Things can be abused to an extent, but are generally not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
51 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Provide a specific legitimate example and we can look into it.

Like i said, it can be abused to an extent, but the information is usually sound.

And that can basically be said for anything n in life Papa. Things can be abused to an extent, but are generally not. 

Didn’t you see my first post here with an example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Timothy
3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Didn’t you see my first post here with an example?

That’s your go-to anti-Wiki material. I’ve clicked those links before in your posts. I deliberately didn’t mention Guerrilla Skeptics because I agree that unsubstantiated claims should be called out/highlighted, and citations should be provided.

You argue that Wikipedia can’t be trusted while also arguing that unsupported claims should go unchecked. That in itself is enough to render your argument against Wikipedia invalid and that you don’t understand the platform and how it works, or the purpose of it, or both. 

Hence why I’m asking for a specific example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
42 minutes ago, Timothy said:

That’s your go-to anti-Wiki material. I’ve clicked those links before in your posts. I deliberately didn’t mention Guerrilla Skeptics because I agree that unsubstantiated claims should be called out/highlighted, and citations should be provided.

You argue that Wikipedia can’t be trusted while also arguing that unsupported claims should go unchecked. That in itself is enough to render your argument against Wikipedia invalid and that you don’t understand the platform and how it works, or the purpose of it, or both. 

Hence why I’m asking for a specific example.

People like unbalanced articles when it is in the direction they like. That’s not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Compare Wikipedia articles on the paranormal versus say Brittanica that has professional editors.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

People like unbalanced articles when it is in the direction they like. That’s not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Compare Wikipedia articles on the paranormal versus say Brittanica that has professional editors.

You’re yet to add anything of substance to your argument against Wikipedia.

Which article from Encyclopedia Britannica would you like to compare?

I know it’s a rule not to call out spelling, but you should really spell Britannica correctly. Doesn’t help your argument! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jethrofloyd

Wikipedia and Unexplained-Mysteries.com they are about the same age :sm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
littlebrowndragon

Anybody know how Wikipedia is funded?  For example, there are many articles that might just as well be adverts for, say, video game makers?  It reminds me of product placement in films etc.  So, surely some of the funding is coming from advertising, even if it is "hidden"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eldorado
4 hours ago, littlebrowndragon said:

Anybody know how Wikipedia is funded?  For example, there are many articles that might just as well be adverts for, say, video game makers?  It reminds me of product placement in films etc.  So, surely some of the funding is coming from advertising, even if it is "hidden"?

https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ#How_is_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_funded?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
littlebrowndragon
14 hours ago, Eldorado said:

Thanks for the link.

Yes, well, the claim that it is funded by donations sounds very innocent.  But if those "donations" are made by business, well, business would want something back, even if only  in the form of tax deductions.  It is important to know just who donates because that, for obvious reasons, has a bearing on just how independent wikipedia actually is, and therefore on how truthful it is.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.