▲ 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
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 83 points 2 years ago (5 children) The thing is that it is very easy to read Wikipedia critically, since it lists every single source they get info from at the bottom of the page. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Zacryon@feddit.de 39 points 2 years ago* (2 children) And here I am fixing missing sources on some wiki articles just yesterday. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joneskind@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (1 child) Someone has to do the job for everyone else can enjoy it. Thank you very much for your service my friend. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zacryon@feddit.de 13 points 2 years ago Haha you're welcome. I just wished that the original authors would be more careful about providing sources for claims or statements. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SpezCanLigmaBalls@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago The hero we don't deserve permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 20 points 2 years ago I feel like news sources used to link to their sources too, but now it seems to be an infinite chain of links to their own articles, never directly taking you to the first hand source of information (unless they are the source). permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheActualDevil@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) The thing is, if the place you're getting your information from doesn't list it's sources, you can't trust it. Whenever I'm researching a thing on the internet and I find an article or a paper, I don't just stop there, I check where they got their info, then I find that source and read it. I follow it all the way back until I find the primary source. Like the other day I was writing a paper about a particular court case. In the opinions, as in most cases, they use precedent and cite prior cases. So I found the other cases that referred to the thing I was writing about, and it turns out they were also just using prior cases. I had to go 6 deep before I found them referencing the actual constitution for one of them. On another I found it interesting that the most recent use case was so far removed from what the original one was about and it was could probably be questionable to even use it as precedent if they had used the original instead of another case. Anyway, the point is, always check sources. If anyone says anything on the internet, assume it's just their opinion until you check and follow the sources.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Are you familiar with Harlow V Fitzgerald, and the full text of article 1983 including the 16 words that went missing in n 1874 when it was "copied" from the Congressional Record into the Federal Register? I'm not a lawyer, but I do want that decision reviewed, since as the law was written and passed by Congress, Harlow V Fitzgerald should have gone the other way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) And very often it's dead links or sources that don't say what the article pretends... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 years ago That's why you don't use Wikipedia as your primary source, you follow the citations. Of course, if you can't verify that it's accurate information, don't report it, but it can be used as a jump off to find a legitimate source if the information you cant immediately verify is useful. permalink fedilink source parent [+] trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zacryon@feddit.de 39 points 2 years ago* (2 children) And here I am fixing missing sources on some wiki articles just yesterday. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joneskind@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (1 child) Someone has to do the job for everyone else can enjoy it. Thank you very much for your service my friend. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zacryon@feddit.de 13 points 2 years ago Haha you're welcome. I just wished that the original authors would be more careful about providing sources for claims or statements. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SpezCanLigmaBalls@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago The hero we don't deserve permalink fedilink source parent
[–] joneskind@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (1 child) Someone has to do the job for everyone else can enjoy it. Thank you very much for your service my friend. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zacryon@feddit.de 13 points 2 years ago Haha you're welcome. I just wished that the original authors would be more careful about providing sources for claims or statements. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zacryon@feddit.de 13 points 2 years ago Haha you're welcome. I just wished that the original authors would be more careful about providing sources for claims or statements. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SpezCanLigmaBalls@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago The hero we don't deserve permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 20 points 2 years ago I feel like news sources used to link to their sources too, but now it seems to be an infinite chain of links to their own articles, never directly taking you to the first hand source of information (unless they are the source). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheActualDevil@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) The thing is, if the place you're getting your information from doesn't list it's sources, you can't trust it. Whenever I'm researching a thing on the internet and I find an article or a paper, I don't just stop there, I check where they got their info, then I find that source and read it. I follow it all the way back until I find the primary source. Like the other day I was writing a paper about a particular court case. In the opinions, as in most cases, they use precedent and cite prior cases. So I found the other cases that referred to the thing I was writing about, and it turns out they were also just using prior cases. I had to go 6 deep before I found them referencing the actual constitution for one of them. On another I found it interesting that the most recent use case was so far removed from what the original one was about and it was could probably be questionable to even use it as precedent if they had used the original instead of another case. Anyway, the point is, always check sources. If anyone says anything on the internet, assume it's just their opinion until you check and follow the sources.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Are you familiar with Harlow V Fitzgerald, and the full text of article 1983 including the 16 words that went missing in n 1874 when it was "copied" from the Congressional Record into the Federal Register? I'm not a lawyer, but I do want that decision reviewed, since as the law was written and passed by Congress, Harlow V Fitzgerald should have gone the other way. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Are you familiar with Harlow V Fitzgerald, and the full text of article 1983 including the 16 words that went missing in n 1874 when it was "copied" from the Congressional Record into the Federal Register? I'm not a lawyer, but I do want that decision reviewed, since as the law was written and passed by Congress, Harlow V Fitzgerald should have gone the other way. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) And very often it's dead links or sources that don't say what the article pretends... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 years ago That's why you don't use Wikipedia as your primary source, you follow the citations. Of course, if you can't verify that it's accurate information, don't report it, but it can be used as a jump off to find a legitimate source if the information you cant immediately verify is useful. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 years ago That's why you don't use Wikipedia as your primary source, you follow the citations. Of course, if you can't verify that it's accurate information, don't report it, but it can be used as a jump off to find a legitimate source if the information you cant immediately verify is useful. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent