My historic house has a Wikipedia page, I've tried updating it with information I know is accurate (I mean, I live here), but it was always removed. Must have a primary source that's not "individual research" like, you know, counting the bedrooms or fireplaces.

Which is what lead to me getting our city's newspaper to interview me, print several facts and stories, and now that published article is a primary source.

During this process I realized that Wikipedia is pretty goddamn serious.

There's a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia too, of many different kinds. Some smaller pages exists purely for someone's PR. I've seen blatantly false (but "verifiable") stuff too but the most common thing is to have pages that are just creative with the truth.

Also sometimes I'll notice an article make multiple different claims that all point to the same source and then check the source and realize it is not a valid source for all of those claims, just some.

And also there's stuff that gets flagged as verified based on extrapolation of data from a combination of sources. For example: one source says "John Doe facing 1 billion dollars fines if found guilty" and another source says "John Doe was found guilty", then the article says "John Doe fined 1 billion dollars after being found guilty" as verified, then you go search the web and find no mention of any fines actually being issued following the verdict.

And then there's the scots language wiki;

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-an-aw-us-teenager-wrote-huge-slice-of-scots-wikipedia

The point isn't that Wikipedia is wrong, the point is that your research papers should cite primary sources published by the field instead of a generic encyclopedia. Even if the pages on encyclopedia are maintained by respected authors, it's not immediately obvious, and the information is likely surface level and not worth citing.

I once posted a Wikipedia article to r/TodayILearned, and my post went really popular. Someone a few hours later then edited the Wikipedia page to contradict my Reddit post title, reported my post to the subreddit mods, and my post got taken down.

Anybody who thinks Wikipedia is bad should have grown up on encyclopedias. Looking back at my childhood set, they are hilariously riddled with errors.

Honestly I think it comes from a misunderstanding regarding secondary sources vs primary ones. Wikipedia, as well as encyclopedias and textbooks, are secondary sources. It's not good practice to cite secondary sources without primary ones, but a lot of people (namely, teachers) don't grasp why which leads these sources to get classified as bad.

That, plus Wikipedia is accessible without the usual gatekeeping and money behind what textbooks and encyclopedias have, which adds to the sources "credibility." Money means marketing, including constant email campaigns targeting people like me trying to validate whatever textbook they're peddling. (And in case you wonder if they're evil, they sometimes offer kickbacks to adopt their expensive textbooks for my university classes).

Fedi users already get that, though, as that's a common problem FOSS usually has. Point is, wiki lives in a weird place because no, you shouldn't cite it just like you shouldn't cite textbooks, but yes, it's perfectly valid so long as you check those sources. And, speaking from experience, some students really don't understand as I see citations for so much worse.

I haven't done it in a while, but I would make little edits to Republican political figures. If they "ended" or "stopped" a business. I change it to "aborted" the business.

Some they would fix, but not all of them.

I registered a domain and wrote an article to try to get a submission through. It worked for a few months, but was removed after that. Very vigilant.

Censorship sucks, giving credit rules.

Meanwhile, my cousin and her friend were listed as honorary citizens of our village for a few months.

In university my entire dorm floor was in on insisting to my ex that it wasn't "Big Bird", but instead "Big Bert" (as opposed to regular sized bert)

It came up for the 100th time at a party, and I was like "go ahead, look it up" and was able to get in an edit JUST before the page load. "Big Bird (Or "Big Burt" for Canadian rebroadcast)"

It lasted for maybe 20 seconds, but it was all we needed.

Nah fuck this attitude, if you ever tried to use Wikipedia for an actual research project you'll know how dubious those """sources""" can be.

It's actuslly an exercise one of my TA friends sets for students when they're just learning to research things properly. She gives them a claim on Wikipedia and and asks them to find the primary source for it. So they end up spending hours following chains of citations, until they are checking out old books from the library to try and find excerpts that some blog post that was cited in a paper that was cited in a newspaper, that was cited in a different blog post that was cited in another news article that was cited by Wikipedia claims exists, just to find out it doesn't.

But seriously, don't take Wikipedia seriously unless it cites a primary source directly.

Wikipedia is like the War Thunder forums on steriods minus the who leaking classified information.

"Yeah, did you read that on Wikipedia?"

Yes, I did.

Just like I used to read things at the library in the 90's, and no-one would've thought to mock that. And one of the books I read was some Soviet scientists from the 50's describing how spiritual auras work in real life.

Although that was in the 00's I just didn't have the internet all the time while in the army.

Wikipedia has major process issues that make it unreliable especially in the long term. Editors are given a ton of power to wield, the process of giving them power is not something the laymen is involved in, once they have power it’s fairly entrenched and hard to remove, and bias absolutely occurs. For the most part the bias is tempered but it is seen more heavily in articles like Gaza, Crimea/Ukraine, Venezuela, war on terror, Autism, transgender issues, war crimes of Japan, articles related to colonalism, articles related to big tech controversies, etc.

It’s something they desperately need to address because the right wing nutjobs are gunning for them and are very well funded. They 100% are going to try to put people into the editorial process or convert people who are already there to swing bias (if this hasn’t happened already). The right wing has managed to do this with the us government, they can and will do it to Wikipedia

Wikipedia is wonderful... for most things.

The main demographic contributing to and editing English Wikipedia are young, highly educated white men from western countries. It will portray on average the bias that most of these people espouse. So it will have racist bias, misogynistic bias and pro-western bias.

That said, it's still probably less misogynistic and less racist and less pro-western than your average outlet, because it filters out some of the most blatant false narratives and propaganda from conservative sources such as FOX.

A problem with Wikipedia is that experts are not allowed to contribute to their areas of expertise because they're "biased" (see edit below). I know a professor at a top university who used to spend his free time editing Wikipedia outside of his specific area but in his broad area of expertise as a method of disseminating science knowledge to the public. When the higher-up Wikipedia editors found out who he was, they banned his account and IP from editing.

Having the lay public write articles works when expertise isn't required to understand something, but much of Wikipedia around science is slightly inaccurate at best. (This is still true, probably owing to the neutral point of view rule [giving weight to fringe ideas as a result] or the secondary source prioritization over primary sources.)

Edit: current Wikipedia editing rules and guidelines would not support this ban, so things appear to have changed. Wikipedia still recommends against primary sources as authoritative sources of information (recommending secondary sources instead), which is not great. But, they explicitly now welcome subject matter experts as editors.

Just as an anecdotal side note, just this year I found a typo (92 instead of 82) contradicted by a quote attached to the cite reference later in the paragraph, and very easily noticed if one checks.

I only use VPNs so I can't fix it.

Eh. It really depends on the topic. I am a Wikipedia addict and I would never tell anyone that Wikipedia should be used for anything beyond surface level familiarity. Ideally you start with Wikipedia then move on to better quality sources. The problem with Wikipedia isn't necessarily inaccuracy, but lack of information and bias. I'm not talking about right wing conspiracies saying Wikipedia is too liberal, but rather I am talking about things in history where a specific view is presented and alternate views are not. This is especially common in situations where modern scholars are questioning historically mainstream views. I suspect this is because the editors simply aren't aware of these developments and are accessing more available older sources, but it can bring in bias. This can also happen in science and engineering as well. Plus there is the classic Wikipedia problem where some random B list Marvel superhero or star wars extended universe side character has an extremely high quality Wikipedia page and a relatively important historical to figure has a very basic overview. Wikipedia is incredible and one of the greatest achievements of Humanity, but it's got some flaws and I don't think that it's wrong to tell students not to rely on Wikipedia. It's kind of like all the same issues with ChatGPT but way less severe and way more subtle.