Wikipedia explaining that they are not a reliable source, a little paradoxical if you think on it too much.
@Mag3rPayne, yeah. But thats referring specifically to using a Wikipedia article as a citation in another Wikipedia article. They do admit their articles are only as good as their editors, but thats can also be said about a most "credible" articles. They make no reference to citing Wikipedia in other articles, such as an essay or newspaper.
Researchers, teachers, journalists, and public officials do not regard Wikipedia as a reliable source. It is seen as a valuable "starting point" for researchers when they pass over content to examine the listed references, citations, and sources.
@Mag3rPayne, now there is the proper link.
The entire summation of human knowledge boiled down to two nerds.
If you want a fun game go add random obviously wrong info to a wiki page and see how long it takes to correct. We used to do that with the crazy ass claims one of my buddies used to make.
Allegedly, also a bunch of liberals. But sure let’s call them nerds.
@Lord Cthulhu, it was actually pretty okay, remember when academia used to say "Wikipedia is not a source" up until around Obama (not his fault) was elected then used it as a primary source? Also Shareblue and Mediamatters founding dates, what were they again? Suddenly after every possible political article was the left wing view. Odd
@Lord Cthulhu, ... What does being liberal have to do with anything?
@thrawnfett, you can use the sources used within the article. You obviously can't use Wikipedia itself because the authors/info might change over time.
I'd like to see what papers use Wikipedia as a source.
@member berry, NY times, they are in a lawsuit over it right now. Their authors often use it to libel people they don't like, usually with a label like far/alt right, extremist, conspiracy theorist, etc. Their lawsuit is with project veritas atm.
@Mag3rPayne, the new york times is not, in fact, a peer reviewed academic journal. Please don’t conflate journalism with research, they’re two different forms of writing with different audiences and different goals. Journalism appeals to a mass audience and seeks to profit by engaging and entertaining them- getting them to buy more papers. Academic writing appeals to a narrower group of experts within a certain field by making evidence-based arguments.
@Kyroll, I don't believe I conflated anything did I?
@Mag3rPayne, I think I see the problem, you interpreted “papers” as “newspapers” and I interpreted “papers” as “research papers” because of what thrawnfett said about “academia” using Wikipedia as a source. My bad.
how do you think the first one was built?
@Godburn, Egyptians going someplace and either trading or conquering/stealing their books and bringing them back
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. What they are is a good place to find sources.
Also of note is the fact that a majority of the articles on Wikipedia were written by one guy.
Someone had to do it