It's free, global, non-profit, and crowd-sourced; it strives for a neutral stance in a media world filled with trolls, polarization, and automated disinformation
Well, many high ránking editors have their own agenda, sometimes related to money exchanged, I read many times. It is not black or White here, I am afraid.
Wikipedia itself states that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." Users can look at the sources, if any, supplied by the person creating the content and make their own judgment.
Yes, but the truth is most of the time people do not check the sources, when there is sources.
An example: I inadvertently got the year of birth of a somewhat famous person absolutely wrong, giving the sources, and nobody checked it. I realised it 4 years later.
I am very interested in finding good sources, publications that double and triple check the facts. In general, the old encyclopaedias did that. And some magazines.
I believe the issue lies not with the information source (in this case Wikipedia), but rather with how people search for information without fact-checking or verifying it. If one needs to apply research methods, the focus should be on the manner rather than solely on the source. However, if I just want to know how many goals Messi scored in the last Copa America for a casual chat with friends, perhaps I don't need that level of depth
Well, many high ránking editors have their own agenda, sometimes related to money exchanged, I read many times. It is not black or White here, I am afraid.
Wikipedia itself states that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." Users can look at the sources, if any, supplied by the person creating the content and make their own judgment.
Yes, but the truth is most of the time people do not check the sources, when there is sources.
An example: I inadvertently got the year of birth of a somewhat famous person absolutely wrong, giving the sources, and nobody checked it. I realised it 4 years later.
I am very interested in finding good sources, publications that double and triple check the facts. In general, the old encyclopaedias did that. And some magazines.
Thanks for reply.
Totally agree, Salvador.
I believe the issue lies not with the information source (in this case Wikipedia), but rather with how people search for information without fact-checking or verifying it. If one needs to apply research methods, the focus should be on the manner rather than solely on the source. However, if I just want to know how many goals Messi scored in the last Copa America for a casual chat with friends, perhaps I don't need that level of depth
Well, when Google's AI Overviews came out, it was widely written that it worked like wikipedia citations: nobody looked at them.
Bueno, cuando salió AI Overviews, de Google, se escribió mucho que eso funcionaba como las citaciones de wikipedia: nadie las miraba.