It will never stop being funny to me that the whole "you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit it" scare happened and now Wikipedia is the only trustworthy website because it turns out profit motive is the reason things turn to shit.

iamdannyboling@mstdn.social

I was once mocked by my cousin and his redneck friends for using Wikipedia to get... a list of US Presidents.

I didn't know how to respond to that so I just kept quiet and removed myself from the thread. I *still* don't know how I should have responded to it.

bobkmertz@techhub.social

@AlSweigart
Wikipedia didn't change, the world around it did. Just because everything around it got worse doesn't mean that it got better even if it's now one of the more reliable sources. Checking references on Wikipedia is still an important thing.

To be clear, I'm not saying Wikipedia is bad and I agree capitalism is the problem but "trust, but verify" is important to follow.

maccruiskeen@social.linux.pizza

@AlSweigart I wouldn't say it's really 'trustworthy'. It still has its limits and flaws. I'm a production editor at a uni press and we discourage our authors from citing it. They should, literally, be doing their own research. However, it has resisted some of the corrosion that has afflicted other media.

himay@infosec.exchange

@jackeric @AlSweigart That's how crowd sourcing works. It needs people (dare I say community?) to care about it enough to fix the typos and misinformation and lack of properly cited sources. Eventually truth outs (in theory).

But it takes resources to keep everything running and detect the wreckers too. I have never enjoyed donating to an organization more. They graciously accept any amount. Single digit donations are treated exactly the same as hundreds of bucks.

xavierlowmiller@hachyderm.io

@AlSweigart “it’s a good thing Wikipedia works in practice because it sure doesn’t work in theory”

chrastecky@phpc.social

@fiend_unpleasant @AlSweigart When I was in high school doing a paper on Al Capone, the Czech Wikipedia had this thing in the "early life" section:

Like every young boy, he liked to beat the meat.

Removing that was my first and so far only Wikipedia edit.

alsweigart@mastodon.social

"Yeah but what about public bathrooms?" The only reason private bathrooms are clean is because they exclude the 99% of the population who aren't paying customers on that day.

You might as well say capitalism is great if you're rich, or dictatorships are great if you're a crowned prince.

alsweigart@mastodon.social

@maccruiskeen And the reason it's resisted that so well is because it doesn't have followers or favorites or likes or any of that engagement nonsense that social media strives for.

alsweigart@mastodon.social

(And anyway, private bathrooms include gas stations, night clubs, bus stations, and stadiums.)

seb321@toot.community

@AlSweigart @hosford42 @jmjm that was a brief but passionate relationship

vatvslpr@c.im

@AlSweigart
The public bathrooms in the park near me are about as good as the ones in the nearest Starbucks. The only thing the Starbucks has going for it is a better hand dryer. The public park restrooms are open 24/7, which is a huge point in their favor. Maybe if more cities had clean public restrooms open 24/7, they'd have fewer problems with unhoused people with poor hygiene.

vatvslpr@c.im

@haunted_refrigerator @AlSweigart
You shouldn't cite Wikipedia because it's a secondary source. For any remotely serious work, you're supposed to go back to the primary sources Wikipedia is citing and reference them instead.

vatvslpr@c.im

@AlSweigart @maccruiskeen
Clout chasing is a scourge. The world would be a much better place if people weren't constantly playing to an audience.

decapitae@mastodon.social

@AlSweigart Thanks for nothing capitalists!
Don't forget to donate to Wikipedia!

beldarak@mastodon.gamedev.place

@sotolf @AlSweigart

Everytime I debate about socialism with people they're like "yeah but you have no solution for this very specific point, so obviously it can't work"

And I'm like... capitalism has the same issue, only not for you because you're not poor, a poc, handicaped...

The classic is "who will work in the sewers". Yeah, remind me who's doing it right now, that's right, people that have no other choice.

beldarak@mastodon.gamedev.place

@maccruiskeen @AlSweigart

I'd say it has the same limitation has anything else. It's one source of information that should be compared with others, even if that source is kinda trustworthy.

inchulk@mastodon.green

@AlSweigart It is not perfect, small details (like birthdate of celebrities) are dodgy. But the large majority of big issues have excellent detail on the facts.
A majority is not enough to use it as a reference source though.
I will be making another donation, apart from any other reason, Musk wants to destroy it (proving Wiki is telling the truth!)

energetic_nova@mastodon.social

@Beldarak @sotolf @AlSweigart

I make a different argument because Im on SSI and feel like socialists and even moreso anarchists refuse to update their theory and insist on pre-welfare state thoughts that make little sense with what they are saying for someone on SSI to agree with. Like the idea my income… is not capitalist. It really isn’t at all. It requires a state.

mausmalone@mastodon.social

@AlSweigart it's worth noting that the thing it's replacing (professionally researched and edited encyclopedias) are still very trustworthy. For them, profit motive turns *access* into the problem instead.

mausmalone@mastodon.social

@bobkmertz @AlSweigart I can remember the early days of Wikipedia and it has definitely gotten better over time. Editors have always been more or less committed to quality, but the breadth of Wikipedia has expanded so much.

Abspeckgeflüster – Forum für Menschen mit Gewicht(ung)

It will never stop being funny to me that the whole "you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit it" scare happened and now Wikipedia is the only trustworthy website because it turns out profit motive is the reason things turn to shit.