▲ 1073 ▼ They use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust. (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by Daft_ish@lemmy.world to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world 330 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) That's a circular argument. If you can't trust the sources how can you trust the wikipedia article which cites those sources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago You can trust the sources, because unreliable sources can't be used on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources permalink fedilink source parent [–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world [S] 7 points 2 years ago* You can check the sources... if the source doesn't check out... Guess what, Wikipedia has given you all the information you need. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) In any discipline some part has to be trusted for the next to follow. It is not circular, it is axiomatic. You can do a Descartes to find a "guarantee of truth", but there won't be one. Hence your critique could literally be applied to anything. Check sources and be happy they are freely provided (and donate to Wikipedia). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) That's my point, by mistrusting every other website, OP is violating axioms upon which Wikipedia is built, yet still claiming it's trustworthy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ah, I now see better what you meant. That is in part a fun little contradiction, but much of Wikipedia's sources are books and articles that come in printed form. These are easier than other websites to verify as sources due to their tangible nature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But it takes more effort to confirm a tangible source than one on the internet? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* Not really. Just sail the high seas with Library Genesis or Sci-Hub. The nature of being published is being non-editable, a digital copy is an okay compromise. EDIT: There is an issue of trust in piracy, though hardly in practice, but Open Access should help with this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago Oh, you're taking me literally. Sorry I didn't catch that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago You can trust the sources, because unreliable sources can't be used on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world [S] 7 points 2 years ago* You can check the sources... if the source doesn't check out... Guess what, Wikipedia has given you all the information you need. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) In any discipline some part has to be trusted for the next to follow. It is not circular, it is axiomatic. You can do a Descartes to find a "guarantee of truth", but there won't be one. Hence your critique could literally be applied to anything. Check sources and be happy they are freely provided (and donate to Wikipedia). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) That's my point, by mistrusting every other website, OP is violating axioms upon which Wikipedia is built, yet still claiming it's trustworthy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ah, I now see better what you meant. That is in part a fun little contradiction, but much of Wikipedia's sources are books and articles that come in printed form. These are easier than other websites to verify as sources due to their tangible nature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But it takes more effort to confirm a tangible source than one on the internet? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* Not really. Just sail the high seas with Library Genesis or Sci-Hub. The nature of being published is being non-editable, a digital copy is an okay compromise. EDIT: There is an issue of trust in piracy, though hardly in practice, but Open Access should help with this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago Oh, you're taking me literally. Sorry I didn't catch that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) That's my point, by mistrusting every other website, OP is violating axioms upon which Wikipedia is built, yet still claiming it's trustworthy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ah, I now see better what you meant. That is in part a fun little contradiction, but much of Wikipedia's sources are books and articles that come in printed form. These are easier than other websites to verify as sources due to their tangible nature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But it takes more effort to confirm a tangible source than one on the internet? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* Not really. Just sail the high seas with Library Genesis or Sci-Hub. The nature of being published is being non-editable, a digital copy is an okay compromise. EDIT: There is an issue of trust in piracy, though hardly in practice, but Open Access should help with this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago Oh, you're taking me literally. Sorry I didn't catch that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ah, I now see better what you meant. That is in part a fun little contradiction, but much of Wikipedia's sources are books and articles that come in printed form. These are easier than other websites to verify as sources due to their tangible nature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But it takes more effort to confirm a tangible source than one on the internet? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* Not really. Just sail the high seas with Library Genesis or Sci-Hub. The nature of being published is being non-editable, a digital copy is an okay compromise. EDIT: There is an issue of trust in piracy, though hardly in practice, but Open Access should help with this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But it takes more effort to confirm a tangible source than one on the internet? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* Not really. Just sail the high seas with Library Genesis or Sci-Hub. The nature of being published is being non-editable, a digital copy is an okay compromise. EDIT: There is an issue of trust in piracy, though hardly in practice, but Open Access should help with this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* Not really. Just sail the high seas with Library Genesis or Sci-Hub. The nature of being published is being non-editable, a digital copy is an okay compromise. EDIT: There is an issue of trust in piracy, though hardly in practice, but Open Access should help with this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago Oh, you're taking me literally. Sorry I didn't catch that. permalink fedilink source parent