• BanMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

  • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Wikipedia is unreliable for politically controversial topics, I’ve seen multiple articles on the Gaza genocide with specific claims citing fucking Times of Israel with no other supporting evidence whatsoever, Times of Israel has been caught lying more than once and shouldn’t be used as a source at all. Each article is only as good as the sources cited and they’re not all equally well sourced, it is entirely possible to insert false info into articles especially if you’ve got a well funded organization behind the effort, and even if it is eventually caught and corrected it will already have served as useful propaganda for anyone reading the article in the interim.