this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
727 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
74592 readers
4036 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Practicing due diligence to make sure Wikipedia's sources are legit isn't difficult. You can check the sources listed on every single Wikipedia entry yourself for bias. It's not like they hide their sources. That alone is what makes it so valuable. Anyone trying to push a narrative can easily see it sourced as bullshit.
Kind of like how the article you linked is a worthless, factless, opinion piece about Wikipedia becoming "woke" due to the feelings of Larry Sanger being hurt. Nothing that article says is based on anything factual, and the only studies mentioned are wildly taken out of context.
Wikipedia let's me do that analysis for myself, so I don't get tricked into thinking an obvious piece of propaganda is real.
I agree with you that Wikipedia is good for finding sources and reading and coming to your own conclusions, but that’s not really the point of Wikipedia. If you can’t trust/believe the actual text of the pages and have to go and read every single linked article yourself then it defeats the purpose. It’s like getting cliff notes but having to go and read the full textbooks anyway.
The co-founders opinion is pretty important in the matter.
It's always been a jumping-off point, not a primary source. It's still fantastic that way.
Unfortunately that’s not how it’s used. It’s used as a primary source most of the time even on here.
Sure, but many will cite a news organization's opinion page as fact. Is this a good reason for any administration to target opinion pages?
The administration is supposed to represent the Constitution, not attack it.
Remember your constitution; particularly the 1st amendment.
That's the issue of the user.