In university my entire dorm floor was in on insisting to my ex that it wasn't "Big Bird", but instead "Big Bert" (as opposed to regular sized bert)

It came up for the 100th time at a party, and I was like "go ahead, look it up" and was able to get in an edit JUST before the page load. "Big Bird (Or "Big Burt" for Canadian rebroadcast)"

It lasted for maybe 20 seconds, but it was all we needed.

Censorship sucks, giving credit rules.

The point isn't that Wikipedia is wrong, the point is that your research papers should cite primary sources published by the field instead of a generic encyclopedia. Even if the pages on encyclopedia are maintained by respected authors, it's not immediately obvious, and the information is likely surface level and not worth citing.

Wikipedia is unreliable for politically controversial topics, I've seen multiple articles on the Gaza genocide with specific claims citing fucking Times of Israel with no other supporting evidence whatsoever, Times of Israel has been caught lying more than once and shouldn't be used as a source at all. Each article is only as good as the sources cited and they're not all equally well sourced, it is entirely possible to insert false info into articles especially if you've got a well funded organization behind the effort, and even if it is eventually caught and corrected it will already have served as useful propaganda for anyone reading the article in the interim.

My historic house has a Wikipedia page, I've tried updating it with information I know is accurate (I mean, I live here), but it was always removed. Must have a primary source that's not "individual research" like, you know, counting the bedrooms or fireplaces.

Which is what lead to me getting our city's newspaper to interview me, print several facts and stories, and now that published article is a primary source.

During this process I realized that Wikipedia is pretty goddamn serious.

Anybody who thinks Wikipedia is bad should have grown up on encyclopedias. Looking back at my childhood set, they are hilariously riddled with errors.

No it generally makes sense to teach kids to not cite Wikipedia. Though it is consistently checked and updated you can look at the wiki link and drama for the Israeli genocide just to see a perfect example of why it shouldn't be cited.

The great part of wikipedia is going to their actual resources ans reading and understanding those. What you were supposed to learn was HOW to research things and come to your own conclusions, not just how to cite information.

"Yeah, did you read that on Wikipedia?"

Yes, I did.

Just like I used to read things at the library in the 90's, and no-one would've thought to mock that. And one of the books I read was some Soviet scientists from the 50's describing how spiritual auras work in real life.

Although that was in the 00's I just didn't have the internet all the time while in the army.

I haven't done it in a while, but I would make little edits to Republican political figures. If they "ended" or "stopped" a business. I change it to "aborted" the business.

Some they would fix, but not all of them.

Honestly I think it comes from a misunderstanding regarding secondary sources vs primary ones. Wikipedia, as well as encyclopedias and textbooks, are secondary sources. It's not good practice to cite secondary sources without primary ones, but a lot of people (namely, teachers) don't grasp why which leads these sources to get classified as bad.

That, plus Wikipedia is accessible without the usual gatekeeping and money behind what textbooks and encyclopedias have, which adds to the sources "credibility." Money means marketing, including constant email campaigns targeting people like me trying to validate whatever textbook they're peddling. (And in case you wonder if they're evil, they sometimes offer kickbacks to adopt their expensive textbooks for my university classes).

Fedi users already get that, though, as that's a common problem FOSS usually has. Point is, wiki lives in a weird place because no, you shouldn't cite it just like you shouldn't cite textbooks, but yes, it's perfectly valid so long as you check those sources. And, speaking from experience, some students really don't understand as I see citations for so much worse.

Wikipedia may be flawed, it's because people are flawed. That's why the scientific method and editors exist. That does not only apply to Wikipedia, but science in general. Because I've seen some finely aged rubbish with an exquisitely greasy texture in the science community. IMHO.

There's a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia too, of many different kinds. Some smaller pages exists purely for someone's PR. I've seen blatantly false (but "verifiable") stuff too but the most common thing is to have pages that are just creative with the truth.

Also sometimes I'll notice an article make multiple different claims that all point to the same source and then check the source and realize it is not a valid source for all of those claims, just some.

And also there's stuff that gets flagged as verified based on extrapolation of data from a combination of sources. For example: one source says "John Doe facing 1 billion dollars fines if found guilty" and another source says "John Doe was found guilty", then the article says "John Doe fined 1 billion dollars after being found guilty" as verified, then you go search the web and find no mention of any fines actually being issued following the verdict.

Nah fuck this attitude, if you ever tried to use Wikipedia for an actual research project you'll know how dubious those """sources""" can be.

It's actuslly an exercise one of my TA friends sets for students when they're just learning to research things properly. She gives them a claim on Wikipedia and and asks them to find the primary source for it. So they end up spending hours following chains of citations, until they are checking out old books from the library to try and find excerpts that some blog post that was cited in a paper that was cited in a newspaper, that was cited in a different blog post that was cited in another news article that was cited by Wikipedia claims exists, just to find out it doesn't.

But seriously, don't take Wikipedia seriously unless it cites a primary source directly.