it's accurate enough that it shouldn't be dismissed as unreliable
Which articles, or which statements in which articles, are reliable and which are unreliable? Which have false statements and which significant ommissions?
The problems is, you don't know which articles or statements you can depend on unless you have expertise in that area.
> "The problems is, you don't know which articles or statements you can depend on unless you have expertise in that area."
How is that not true of most sources?
I'm not sure how to take your statement. It clearly is not true of many sources. Some sources have proven expertise (something Wikipedia effectively never has), some have a proven track record of reliability.
Reliability isn't binary, either 100% or nothing (or random). Analogously, all people lie to some degree but clearly some I trust and some I do not.
Fair enough. I just like that on wikipedia you can look behind the curtain and see who is editing what and see the discussion leading to what is in the articles on controversial topics so you can attempt to weigh what biases are in play. I guess I could see someone make an argument about "what if you don't even know its a controversial topic?", but I don't think that happens enough to hurt wikipedia's value. Of course that might just be my personal biases messing with me.
The transparency is great, and would be a valulable addition to more professional sources, but in the end I don't think there is a lot to be found there ...
on wikipedia you can look behind the curtain and see who is editing
You can't see who it is, just some psuedonyms (possibly muliple ones for same person) and ip addresses. That's why somenone had to trace edits back to the NYPD, and even then we don't know the people. How many other things have we read in Wikipedia written by NYPD employees, for example -- we have no idea!
... and see who is editing what and see the discussion leading to what is in the articles ...
That's a lot to ask. Some of the discussions are very long and convoluted, and most are filled with noise (arguments on rules and conduct), and misinformation worse than the article, because the standards for the Talk pages are much lower.
Comments
Which articles, or which statements in which articles, are reliable and which are unreliable? Which have false statements and which significant ommissions?
The problems is, you don't know which articles or statements you can depend on unless you have expertise in that area.
"The problems is, you don't know which articles or statements you can depend on unless you have expertise in that area."
How is that not true of most sources?
EDIT:s/any/most/
I'm not sure how to take your statement. It clearly is not true of many sources. Some sources have proven expertise (something Wikipedia effectively never has), some have a proven track record of reliability.
Reliability isn't binary, either 100% or nothing (or random). Analogously, all people lie to some degree but clearly some I trust and some I do not.
Fair enough. I just like that on wikipedia you can look behind the curtain and see who is editing what and see the discussion leading to what is in the articles on controversial topics so you can attempt to weigh what biases are in play. I guess I could see someone make an argument about "what if you don't even know its a controversial topic?", but I don't think that happens enough to hurt wikipedia's value. Of course that might just be my personal biases messing with me.
The transparency is great, and would be a valulable addition to more professional sources, but in the end I don't think there is a lot to be found there ...
You can't see who it is, just some psuedonyms (possibly muliple ones for same person) and ip addresses. That's why somenone had to trace edits back to the NYPD, and even then we don't know the people. How many other things have we read in Wikipedia written by NYPD employees, for example -- we have no idea!
That's a lot to ask. Some of the discussions are very long and convoluted, and most are filled with noise (arguments on rules and conduct), and misinformation worse than the article, because the standards for the Talk pages are much lower.