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.
To a degree. But you also run into the classic XKCD problem of Citogenesis. This isn’t a hypothetical, either.
Had you, for instance, mentioned something you read about your own historical house on Wikipedia in the city’s newspaper, it would now be a cited piece of information that Wikipedia links onto.
There’s also the problem of link rot. When your small town newspaper gets bought up by ClearChannel or Sinclair media and the back archives locked down or purged, the link to the original information can’t be referenced anymore.
That’s before you get into the back-end politics of Wikipedia - a heavy bias towards western media sources, European language publications, and state officials who are de facto “quotable” in a way outsider sources and investigators are not. Architectural Digest is a valid source in a way BanMe’s Architecture Review Blog is not. That has nothing to do with the veracity of the source and everything to do with the history and distribution of the publication.
I have a wiki editor account primarily for updating links on pages. I have also done a handful of minor edits on some obscure pages in my field, but primarily use it to update links and references. Link rot is the worst and I wish more people would help out with it.
When a link is dead, does Wikipedia allow you to change it to an archived copy of the webpage from before it was taken down?
Not sure. I have typically just done a Google search and refound the link under the same domain but with a different sub routing.
Even if the link isn’t dead, most citation templates that accept a |url= parameter also accept |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |url-status=
Also, newly added links are automatically archived on the Wayback Machine iirc.
It would be nice if Wikipedia automatically integrated with WayBackMachine or some other archive service. Or even directly backed up the information when it was linked.
Really valuable input here, appreciate this comment!
Yeah I was reading about the editing guidelines and they have a principle that surprised me at first:
Basically, you could edit an article with information you know is true (like your bedrooms or fireplaces), but truth is not the criteria that edits get tested upon. It must be verifiable by a source.
Pretty cool that you didn’t just give up and actually got the local newspaper to interview you! That’s awesome!
That is hilarious. At that point if I was annoyed enough, I’d do something like hang a picture in the house taking a dig at Wikipedia and then the interview could mention that and now it could be in the article about the house taking a dig at them.
if I was annoyed enough, I’d do something like hang a picture in the house taking a dig at Wikipedia and then the interview could mention that and now it could be in the article about the house taking a dig at them.
that published article is a primary source.
It’s not a primary source, that’s the whole point. It’s a secondary source, which takes information from the primary source and publishes it with some degree of verification.
The whole ‘no primary sources’ thing is simple if one considers that Trump and Musk are the primary sources on their own doings.
I once posted a Wikipedia article to r/TodayILearned, and my post went really popular. Someone a few hours later then edited the Wikipedia page to contradict my Reddit post title, reported my post to the subreddit mods, and my post got taken down.
Reddit gonna reddit
Imagine being the level of asshole that would spend the time to do this. I’m not surprised, just…disappointed.
Why be disappointed. That’s more effort than most people go through on the internet. I’m actually impressed.
Is that Wikipedia page accurate today?
I’m not sure. It was about the “turbo” button on 80s PCs, and how its function could be confusing to users depending on how it was wired. You look at the talk page and edit history there’s still a lot of arguments about this.
Most of the edits to try and say turbo is the slow mode were done by the one person, they seem to think they are right when all the evidence points to the contrary. I’m glad they seem to have given up for now.
Heh maybe you inspired them :p
Yeah unless the fact that the original Wikipedia article was grossly inaccurate in person that edited actually did edit it correctly then this sounds like a bullshit made up sorry. I mean not that it didn’t actually happen because that shit happens all the time. But if we compete I would have been edited and then had somebody report it within usually a few hours or so it would be removed and returned it back to the original state once it was verified false.
Honestly I think it comes from a misunderstanding regarding secondary sources vs primary ones. Wikipedia, as well as encyclopedias and textbooks, are secondary sources. It’s not good practice to cite secondary sources without primary ones, but a lot of people (namely, teachers) don’t grasp why which leads these sources to get classified as bad.
That, plus Wikipedia is accessible without the usual gatekeeping and money behind what textbooks and encyclopedias have, which adds to the sources “credibility.” Money means marketing, including constant email campaigns targeting people like me trying to validate whatever textbook they’re peddling. (And in case you wonder if they’re evil, they sometimes offer kickbacks to adopt their expensive textbooks for my university classes).
Fedi users already get that, though, as that’s a common problem FOSS usually has. Point is, wiki lives in a weird place because no, you shouldn’t cite it just like you shouldn’t cite textbooks, but yes, it’s perfectly valid so long as you check those sources. And, speaking from experience, some students really don’t understand as I see citations for so much worse.
Wikipedia, as well as encyclopedias and textbooks, are secondary sources.
Very clear.
Secondary examples include:
Dictionaries, Encyclopedias (also considered tertiary);
Tertiary examples include:
Dictionaries and Encyclopedias (also considered secondary);
They do have a handy table later though:
| Primary | diaries - world war |
| Secondary | biography - world war |
| Tertiary | encyclopedia - world war |
Wasn’t arguing I just posted the link to source from the wiki article like my teachers would have wanted 😜
Oh, snap, it is so on!
Back when I was in school they outright censored Wikipedia. Fuck that shit
Same here, but everyone used it by…just citing the sources at the bottom of the page. It was honestly the dumbest logic ever. Professors telling you, you can’t use Wikipedia because anyone can edit it, but being ok with the literal source the Wikipedia article used for its info…just made zero sense.
deleted by creator
I’m on the fence about not citting primary sources. And especially in the sciences, where it’s actually the slow, boring, long process of many publications and many datat sets coming together to conclude something 'in the aggregate '. Like I’ll usually go to a review or meta analysis paper as a citation, because it’s combining and comparing the results across studies.
And really, a living document like Wikipedia is more like that kind of review or meta analysis paper.
I’m not disagreeing that were taught to go for primary sources, but in some ways, they’re actually less reliable than secondary sources if those secondary sources are taking in a a broader collection of primary sources, which something like Wikipedia is.
Actually, are you sure a meta analysis isn’t a primary source? Having worked on one in the past, you’re often having to reanalyze data and the finished product is quite unique.
Even “structured literature reviews” I think count as primary sources, since the author adds to the literature their own perspective and they are generally peer reviewed.
That said, when you cite things professionally, you will often have hundreds of sources. Most researchers, legal scholars, etc., just keep a database of their citations for easy callback. It’s important because at the upper levels, different authors might speak of the same objective findings in two different ways and with two different frameworks, so the aggregate loses that.
It’s not something non-professionals necessarily need to care about, but you do want to train undergraduates on that proper methods so they’re ready if and when they go to graduate school.
I agree that in general meta analysis stands apart, but I brought it up because it’s so often coupled with a deep review of material like a review article would hold. It’s also totally valid to cite a review article as a primary source, but I tend not to prefer this in my writing. My reasons for this are two fold, first, one of my memories was a curmudgeon who insisted on going all the way back through any chain if claims and citations to find, originally source, and reevaluate each claim. And, in doing so, regularly found irregularities and misattributed statements or just straight up mysteries of where the hell someone got something from. Its a pita, but it pays to be detail oriented when evaluating claims a domain has just accepted as table stakes.
This litterally happened to me recently where I was trying to figure out how this, fairly well known author had determined the functional form they were fitting to a curve. And like, three or four citations deep and a coffee with a colleague of theirs later, it turns out “they just made that shit up”.
Agreed, and a good literature review will dig up that chain. Although it won’t ever be perfectly accurate since the point is paraphrasing the literature to build a structure around what you’re doing, that doesn’t mean your secondary source understood the original (and their reviewers, who can very much be hit or miss).
And don’t get me started on authors misunderstanding quantitative data, haha. I haven’t been doing much academic research since my kids were born, but the number of “they made that shit up” cases were wild in education research. Like arbitrary spline models, misused propensity score matching, a SEM model with cherry picked factors, you name it.
… And this comment chain is way next level for this community. Hahaha
And then there’s the scots language wiki;
The quotes used in the article sound like something Groundkeeper Willie would say. Im not sure why anyone would take them seriously.
afaik Wikipedia shut down the Greenlandic language version to prevent this exact situation, apparently the language used there was getting very poor
Censorship sucks, giving credit rules.
Good stuff. I’ll switch it
Very cool of you to do so!
It’s the right thing to do, unless there’s an obvious reason as to why it’s censored
Nah fuck this attitude, if you ever tried to use Wikipedia for an actual research project you’ll know how dubious those “”“sources”“” can be.
It’s actuslly an exercise one of my TA friends sets for students when they’re just learning to research things properly. She gives them a claim on Wikipedia and and asks them to find the primary source for it. So they end up spending hours following chains of citations, until they are checking out old books from the library to try and find excerpts that some blog post that was cited in a paper that was cited in a newspaper, that was cited in a different blog post that was cited in another news article that was cited by Wikipedia claims exists, just to find out it doesn’t.
But seriously, don’t take Wikipedia seriously unless it cites a primary source directly.
don’t take Wikipedia seriously unless it cites a primary source directly.
You’ll regularly find a link to a secondary source that contains a reference to a primary source. If you just want generically available historical, scientific, or broadly epistemological knowledge, its great. If you want an on-the-ground testimonial from an eye-witness, it may give you the start of a breadcrumb trail towards your destination.
That said, the bias endemic to Wikipedia is largely a product of its origins - primarily English, western media focused, heavily populated by editors from a handful of global north countries. If you want to learn about the history of a mayoralty in Saskatchewan going back to the 18th century, its a rich resource. If you want to find out the political valence of the major political parties of Nepal or Azerbaijan, you’ll find a much thinner resource.
Some of that is a consequence of the editors (or absence of them) around a particular topic. Some of that is a consequence of the moderators/admins graylisting or outright blacklisting sources. Newer sources - 404media, for instance - aren’t tracked while older sources that have changed management significantly and lost some of their trustworthiness - WSJ, CBS, National Geographic, as recent examples.
In this day and age, where newspapers will publish any bullshit dictated by their corporate / billionaire owners, and any idiot can publish a book, how do we know the sources themselves are even valid? Like just because it’s physically printed doesn’t make it any more true.
Anybody who thinks Wikipedia is bad should have grown up on encyclopedias. Looking back at my childhood set, they are hilariously riddled with errors.
Yes, but they have professional errors. Not those errors that could have been written by just about anyone.
People paid good money for those errors though! Not like those freeloading people doing it all for donations…
Right?! I’d rather have a bunch of autistic nerds patrolling their favorite subjects for stupid changes. Turns out that works pretty damned well.
I haven’t done it in a while, but I would make little edits to Republican political figures. If they “ended” or “stopped” a business. I change it to “aborted” the business.
Some they would fix, but not all of them.
I registered a domain and wrote an article to try to get a submission through. It worked for a few months, but was removed after that. Very vigilant.
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.
In university my entire dorm floor was in on insisting to my ex that it wasn’t “Big Bird”, but instead “Big Bert” (as opposed to regular sized bert)
It came up for the 100th time at a party, and I was like “go ahead, look it up” and was able to get in an edit JUST before the page load. “Big Bird (Or “Big Burt” for Canadian rebroadcast)”
It lasted for maybe 20 seconds, but it was all we needed.
Meanwhile, my cousin and her friend were listed as honorary citizens of our village for a few months.
Eh. It really depends on the topic. I am a Wikipedia addict and I would never tell anyone that Wikipedia should be used for anything beyond surface level familiarity. Ideally you start with Wikipedia then move on to better quality sources. The problem with Wikipedia isn’t necessarily inaccuracy, but lack of information and bias. I’m not talking about right wing conspiracies saying Wikipedia is too liberal, but rather I am talking about things in history where a specific view is presented and alternate views are not. This is especially common in situations where modern scholars are questioning historically mainstream views. I suspect this is because the editors simply aren’t aware of these developments and are accessing more available older sources, but it can bring in bias. This can also happen in science and engineering as well. Plus there is the classic Wikipedia problem where some random B list Marvel superhero or star wars extended universe side character has an extremely high quality Wikipedia page and a relatively important historical to figure has a very basic overview. Wikipedia is incredible and one of the greatest achievements of Humanity, but it’s got some flaws and I don’t think that it’s wrong to tell students not to rely on Wikipedia. It’s kind of like all the same issues with ChatGPT but way less severe and way more subtle.
A problem with Wikipedia is that experts are not allowed to contribute to their areas of expertise because they’re “biased”(see edit below). I know a professor at a top university who used to spend his free time editing Wikipedia outside of his specific area but in his broad area of expertise as a method of disseminating science knowledge to the public. When the higher-up Wikipedia editors found out who he was, they banned his account and IP from editing.Having the lay public write articles works when expertise isn’t required to understand something, butmuch of Wikipedia around science is slightly inaccurate at best. (This is still true, probably owing to the neutral point of view rule [giving weight to fringe ideas as a result] or the secondary source prioritization over primary sources.)Edit: current Wikipedia editing rules and guidelines would not support this ban, so things appear to have changed. Wikipedia still recommends against primary sources as authoritative sources of information (recommending secondary sources instead), which is not great. But, they explicitly now welcome subject matter experts as editors.
Can you share the author/topic?
Wikipedia welcomes expert contributors, but people editing articles about themselves is a big no-no. You’re also not allowed to do promotion of your pet theories, even if you’re “expert”.
Things appear to have changed; thanks for drawing my attention to that. I may start editing some articles in my broader area.
I can’t without doxxing myself more than I’d like. It wasn’t an article about himself, nor his research. This was about 10 years ago, so the rules may have changed. I’ll take a look and edit my post accordingly if so.
Wikipedia still recommends against primary sources as authoritative sources of information (recommending secondary sources instead), which is not great.
Indeed, Wikipedia should cite Trump and Musk on the actions and views of Trump and Musk, because who would know better about them than Trump and Musk.
Wikipedia is like the War Thunder forums on steriods minus the who leaking classified information.
