How often is wikipedia wrong?

wikipedia is worse than garbage

Wikipedia is mostly accurate except for a few controlled by revisionist mods such as gamergate.

Almost all the time

Attached: 1475869521646.png (607x505, 37K)

Well there's literally "REVISION HISTORY" if you think about it.

based

Pretty decent as long as it's not anything politically controversial.

>wikipedia, which claims to supports facts over popular ass shit
>chooses what is popular
>"reliable sources"
>aka. corporate cock sucking news sites, shill blogs etc.

Everyone already uses the word linux, there's no shilling. How deluded can you be fsf fanatics be?

this, I doubt there are any errors with the spinning wheel article

>Everyone already uses the word linux
argumentum ad populum
post discarded, try again. Actually don't, I don't remember the last time someone who called it le loonix had an intelligent opinion or an opinion that matter on the OS.

Nowadays, some sources for social media shit is just "I'll ask my friend to make an article about this, then he'll be the source." Really.

>argumentum ad populum
It's not argumentum ad populum when that's literally how languages work. You're just autistic.

t. butthurt altrighter

>Not that often especially in english since they require sources.

does anybody ever check them ?

>Its curated by volunteers, so I imagine there's plenty of room for error.
There's the same room for errors when paid professionals do it. Cf.: The history of computing.
BTW: The major problem I think is that some articles are pretty vague.

I'm 22 and i found it wrong only one time

You underestimate the power of collective autism.

No.
Have you ever gone through the citations list of a wiki page? Let's look at one random page. This is the first sourced statement:
>Richard Matthew Stallman (/ˈstɔːlmən/; born March 16, 1953), often known by his initials, rms[1]
This is what [1] leads to
>Stallman, Richard (n.d.). "Humorous Bio".
>Richard Stallman's 1983 biography. First edition of "The Hacker's Dictionary". 'Richard Stallman' is just my mundane name; you can call me 'rms'
As you can see, not only does the footnote cite to a nonexistent source, whoever made the article does not know how to cite or what citation is.
This is just par for the course. Most contributors are uneducated plebs and literally would not know how to cite even if they wanted to in good faith, which they don't most of the time.
Also the real problem is the amount of unverifiable claims made, which make up 50% of the content.

Everyone calls flash drives "USB". So by your logic
USB == flash drive
Instead of USB just being a port.

there was a study done some time ago that found it is roughly as accurate as proper/traditional encyclopedias, with the benefit that it is constantly updated and expanding, this makes it an ideal source to get information. Of course as always you should check the sources when citing things from it.

livescience.com/7946-wikipedia-accurate.html
Here's a link I found that references the study, though their source link is dead.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

Check the sources they cite and refer to and find out yourself.

nature.com/articles/438900a
Found.

>implying Jow Forums doesn't call him rms consistently

Short answer: "Wikipedia isn't wrong, just extremely biased."

Long answer: "Wikipedia is often right about Harry Potter and Star Wars, but often wrong about any non-pop-culture topic."

If you make an edit to one of the Harry Potter books or movies, that shit will be undone in minutes. Not because what you did was wrong, but because there are serious autists who treat that page like their baby. On the other hand, if you edit something like, I don't know... Virginia Woolf's Orlando, you can expect that shit to be untouched for years, even if it's horribly wrong information.

Then there's shit like the article for Mein Kampf. The whole article is just one big hit peice. Full of criticisms. The only part of that article that objectively states the contents of the book is a copy/pasted table of contents with the title of each chapter. If you want to know something like why Hitler hated Jews, which you would think would be mentioned once in the article, you won't find it. You'd have to actually read Mein Kampf to find out.

>not only does the footnote cite to a nonexistent source
t. retard
amazon.com/dp/0060910828

The article on Linux.

back to your containment board

Nice find, that really is a blatent lie.

Wikipedia is good if you're looking for another website to use as an actual source. It's terrible as a source itself.

I understand that encyclopedias can be wrong, but the fact wikipedia can be live corrected, also means it can create just as many live mistakes. Isn't better to have information locked for awhile so it can settle and better correct the inaccuracies in the revision? Given some people are literally rewriting history these days, im kind of scared of having to rely solely on digitally edited information.

People like wikipedia for the sheer convenience. Rather than wait for the administrator to fix a mistake you can go and do it yourself.

I don't align with the Jow Forums faggots, but I think honest and accurate preservation of history is extremely important. Both for my own nostalgic memories, and so people can remember the history of the world with all of its mistakes or ugliness. The biases of current day people dont allow for accurate history, so we need to make sure its safe somewhere until they can handle it again.

Attached: WizardsAvatarandElinore.jpg (900x494, 121K)

I do when arguing k-pop sales numbers, people writing those often have vague sources that aren't accurate.

got paid $15k for getting a Wikipedia account to admin status several years ago (not as good as it sounds to the uninitiated), AMA

to answer OP's question: there's no misinformation other than the usual garbage that's widely disseminated in "reliable" sources (6 gorillion, holy dindus, etc.); one of the things people don't understand is that Wikipedia's goal isn't to tell the truth but to tell the story as presented by mainstream publications (which means if you control these, you can control Wikipedia as it will repeat your lies after you)

articles on ongoing events are typically semiprotected (you need an established account to edit) for that reason

>The biases of people will never allow for accurate history
fixed 4u

I know that The Hacker's Dictionary is a thing and that the rms line comes from an entry in it. The point, which went right over your head, is that the article cites to "Humorous Bio" as Richard Stallman's biography, and otherwise does not follow any known rules of citation.

>Rather than wait for the administrator to fix a mistake you can go and do it yourself.
Have you tried to fix a wiki article? You are just going to get a thousand people REEEEE at you and get everything rolled back.

nice moving of goalposts

Can't we fix this?

The point keeps going over your head, nigger.
Maybe you should stay out of threads you are not qualified to comment on?

>random

send this to rms

Wikipedia is usually fine for cursory knowledge about a topic or subject. The site shits itself on current events, though. Any hot button issue becomes a war ground between political shits trying to edit over their enemies.

The GamerGate article.

Attached: gmxzva74t2i01.jpg (640x607, 33K)

>everyone is a dumbass
wow more news at eleven

don't you have a (((wikipedia))) page to (((censor)))

>Isn't better to have information locked for awhile so it can settle and better correct the inaccuracies in the revision?
Wikipedia does this. Articles that are based on generally well-established things and also found to be high-quality are marked "Stable" and only updated after significant changes are found to be necessary and can be vetted more or less, at which time the new version rolls out.

Also you have to have some mild idea of how Wikipedia gets updated: For many articles, there are groups of essentially evangelical spergs who argue back and forth on the talk page and keep anyone from modifying them, so even inaccurate edits are often reverted in minutes. It's a double-edged sword to be essentially a living encyclopedia, but overall it's pretty good. Again, just check the citations if you really need to be sure something is accurate, otherwise if it's just casual browsing you can more or less assume it's good enough to go by.

"last stable version" is what an admin would revert an article to before edit-protecting it if there's been an edit war or some other shenanigans

there's no such thing as marking something as a stable version

now that I think of it, there's such a thing as pending changes that some irrelevant niggerspeak offshoots of the English Wikipedia use the way you described because they're retarded and have no understanding of what made the main Wikipedia so successful but that's it, the English Wikipedia doesn't do this shit and just thinking about it triggered me

t. high school dropout who has "potential"

>All non pop culture topics are politics
The Wikipedia's chemistry portal, while often lacking information, almost never presents false information. Same can go for biology, even though some facts are disputed, most of the time multiple perspectives are presented. You can read about physics on wikipedia just fine, and maths portal is meh but its rarely pure wrong. Everyone should just use mathworld instead kek.

Why would you use an encyclopedia created by a Bubba from Alabama? Use something like Infogalactic instead.

It's not often wrong on purely factual matters (ie. Person was fired in 2016) but is often wrong in subjective matters (WHY Person was fired in 2016). For instance, Steve Bannon's page on wikipedia has contradictory statements by supporters and detractors about how he is apparently a white supremacist alt righter but has always denounced white supremacy and bigots. But the facts about when he did this or that in his career path are accurate.

Attached: 1522529391403.jpg (473x598, 246K)

It's mostly garbage. There is no education requirement to write on here, and wikipedia has obnoxious know-it-all insiders who over power everyone and write whatever they want on any topic they choose.
It's never been a reliable source throughout my years in middle school, high school and four college years. It can only get worse.

i check them every time i find something i didn't expect.
most of the time i either get a 404 on the link or the source is behind a paywall or the source is some random page of a book.
i still believe the vast majority of information found on wikipedia is correct, though often there are some details missing.

I often check and can get past the paywall for journal articles with my old college login. I can safely say the majority of Wikipedia citations are bullshit

Its called a usb drive. Theres nothing rule breaking about cutting it down to just USB given proper context