- Strict editing policy
- Plenty of citations
- Mobs of roving quality editors
- Not okay source

80% of the rest of the Web
- No editing policy
- No citations
- Moderate to poor quality
- Perfectly acceptable source

For the record, Wikipedia is usually a good source for non-controversial subjects that have a sufficient population of knowledgeable people, if you check the citations. Outside of that it can get shaky.

@alexbuzzbee "Where did you read that, on Wikipedia? Or on the oh-so-bad rest of the web?"

@alexbuzzbee For establishing a noncontroversial point, Wikipedia is fine.

In almost all cases, however, *Wikipedia will point to sources for information contained.* Using Wikipedia as a shortcut to jump-start your literature search is fair game.

Once you've found a few sources, sorting out more / further is easier.

*Read the Talk page!!!* Any deep controversies are almost always revealed there. Often more meaningful than the main article page.

@dredmorbius @alexbuzzbee check if the sources are diverse.. remember seeing one on Vietnam human trafficking, it pretty much basically depended on US state information.

That would not be a good starting point imo.

Also i have a somewhat jaded view of papers of record.

@alexbuzzbee Part of the problem here is that every website is incentivized to be the definitive original source of information to attract links and traffic to it. You see this a lot with news sites. No one wants to admit that they just read it somewhere else and link to the original source. They want to be perceived as the source so that others will link to them. This, obviously, doesn’t work when everyone is unwilling to link to anyone else.

But that's the thing, they get all their information from other sources. So it's best to check there.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is a Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.