Wikipedia Reliability Criticism
Discussions center on the unreliability, biases, and limitations of Wikipedia as a source, emphasizing its editable nature, political slants, and the need to consult original sources or edit histories.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
A wikipedia article has to attribute a source, and their sources are biased af.
More useful is a bullshit metric.You seemed to take all of this as an attack against you personally, I assure you it was not, please calm down.No one said there was a better source, only that Wikipedia is far from perfect.No specifics need be given Wikipedia when its a truism that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.Nevertheless here[1] is a page from Wikipedia about the reliability of Wikipedia.And since you are asking for specifics as if none exist, here[2] is an HN thread
Even wikipedia tells people not to use wikipedia as a source. It's a reasonable point.
No, Wikipedia is no better than any other site which allows user edits and in many ways reliably biased towards certain narratives - which narrative depends on the subject of the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles should always be read in conjunction with the Talk and Edit history pages and even then it is necessary to find original sources for any claims made in Wikipedia articles.
Why are the sources that people cite in Wikipedia not vulnerable to the same issues?
==1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, try again.==I used the person's own source to display the cherry-picked nature of their data, try again.
Could you provide any arguments, instead of just bashing Wikipedia?
You're citing Wikipedia as a source on this issue?
Wikipedia is an aggregator not a source. It's like HN, a useful place to find links to where reputable people have said things.
Wikipedia has an article about the reliability of wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia