• 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Wikipedia is a source unless you’re writing an academic paper or for Wikipedia. It’s far more accurate than most news sites and for the most part immune to political bias, as the only way it can be biased is to exclude things but if you do then someone else will just add them in

    I just showed that the source given went directly against what was being said in the comment

    • zephyreks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except, it’s really not. Your quote from the Wikipedia article is unsubstantiated conjecture with no source that supports the claim.

      There’s a reason Wikipedia isn’t acceptable for academic papers: it’s factually incorrect often enough to be a problem. It’s specifically a problem for non-Western content because the vast majority of Wikipedia contributors speak English as their dominant (and often only) language and thus can only ever use English secondary or tertiary sources.