The Real Reason WIKIPEDIA is a Bad Source
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- As someone who works as a scientist evaluating research for a living, I'll tell you straight up why Wikipedia is a bad source.
When we go through the process of healing and self-improvement, most of us start by searching on the internet for remedies and solutions. When we do so, we invariably come across Wikipedia.
Remember how in school, our teachers told us not to use Wikipedia as a source because “anyone can edit it and it’s not always accurate”? Well, that's not really even true. I’ll tell you the real reason.
Please like this video, comment if you feel so inclined (I respond to most comments), and subscribe for more tips on creating a safe and healthy home - whether the word "home" refers to your house or your body. - Jak na to + styl
You should provide examples of how Wikipedia provides perspectives you dislike, since a perspective can't be right or wrong as you point out. you do seem to also recognize that wikipedia often provides accurate descriptive statements regarding topics. I guess for me wikipedia often provides a perspective that i'm either indifferent to or agree with, but most often I only see descriptive statements on wikipedia although the use and framing of those statements can always have a subjective bias attached to them. So yeah, maybe you could tell me what exactly you disagree with so I can know where you're coming from since I browse the current events portal on wikipedia everyday.
Wikipedia literally has sources on political articles that just reference a news article that references another one that references another one but none of those new articles have sources or have sources but they're not actual sources, they're just misinterpreting data and half the time the "facts" they pull from the studies they 'source' their information from actually show rhe opposite of what the news article says it does, but Wikipedia uses the news article as a source and thus bad information. It happens ALL the time.
I appreciate the airing of your opinion. Opinions provide the beginnings of a useful hypothesis. Wikipedia is one of the few resources in my life that I donate money to annually. Why would I do that since I acknowledge as you do that it is less than accurate? Because regardless of how deeply I wish knowledge could be delivered to me as I sit on my couch streaming videos and games, I know access to knowledge requires a much higher personal cost. Sure, claims are made as to the veracity of this or that. They are claims. Any claim as to the absolute status of fact remains a claim. Claims are not fact, though they can participate in the uncovering of a fact. So what we need as humans, it seems to me, is a public FORUM with the least resistance to participation in providing as many data points (claims) as possible. And then knowledge production (using the process of science) has a chance to begin. The criticism of Wikipedia strikes me as a complaint that humans are stuck. They are stuck because they must choose by nature the reliable over the absolute. Your opinion about Wikipedia is a single human shaking their fist at the author of us (not to be interpreted as a reference to the gods). It is good and familiar drama. But your fist shaking doesn't change for me that Wikipedia is the closest opportunity I know of to getting closer to that FORUM. And that is why I participate in donating to Wikipedia.
That's a fantastic argument. I agree.
Unfortunately true
Yup, and it’s unfortunate because so many people go straight to Wikipedia and consider it an exhaustive source. So they don’t look at any additional sources.
Wikipedia use to be good but went crap since people can add whatever they want on it.
CZcams has tons of AI generated nonsense too.
While I have never done so myself.. what about contributing to the Wikipedia page that you find lacking?
Absolutely, CZcams does have AI generated nonsense. That being said, you can usually tell pretty easily. There’s usually a voiceover with a sort of detached, soulless vibe for most of the video haha.
For the record, I definitely don’t recommend using ONLY CZcams when looking for sources.
I’m not sure about the process of Wikipedia contribution. I’ve heard Wikipedia is heavily controlled and is not as “open source” as it seems.
I personally find CZcams to be a better platform for spreading the information that I value. And of course, I can’t single-handedly solve the Wikipedia problem. It’s better for me to warn people about it.
Really!? Fascinating. This is worse than I thought. Thank you for commenting @jeremiahbullfrog9288
@@HealthyHomeGuideWikipedia is heavily moderated. Anyone can post to an article. Whether your edits would remain for more than a day or two depends on the management's feelings on the nature of your contributions and how they feel about the value of your cited sources.
I've heard of instances of nonsense on wikipedia that stuck around because wikipedia liked those sources better than the sources rebutting them, though I can't remember what the topic was.
Anyways, criticism of wikipedia doesn't tend to mean you object to the writers but that you object to the management. I find it generally useful for an overview, but it does have a management methodology that has faith in published sources, so I often check who their sources are and consider for myself whether I find them as reliable. Wikipedia believes their news outlets and public statements more than I do. I remember during peak COVID I was ignoring health officials statements (that were not about outbreaks and numbers of cases in my town last week) and instead set up filtered RSS feeds to watch for actual studies I could check, and people commenting on actual studies, showing what worked to prevent it. I subsequently avoided COVID until my toddler caught it from his physiotherapist in January and gave it to all of us. So we avoided the really bad strains.
But we were also significantly more cautious than the WHO and my government told people to be, with our precautions based on what I got from aerosol demonstrations from engineers and what virologists showed in studies worked for killing / avoiding it.
Definitely keep in mind Wikipedia's biases when you read information there.