this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1061 points (90.8% liked)

Showerthoughts

30032 readers
593 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No. There are plenty of articles with the "needs citations" tag.

But even of the ones that are? A LOT of people never actually read the sources and you have plenty of wild claims that are not at all supported by their citation. Plenty of "celebrities" have even talked about how it was a huge hassle to get something changed because the lie was cited... with something unrelated.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"a huge hassle"

Step 1. Remove the unfounded claim

Step 2. Go to the talk page explaining why you removed it

Step 3. If someone puts it back, edit war them, tag needs citation, call them out in the talk page, get the article locked by an admin, etc etc etc. These things happen all the time, and 95% of the time it gets corrected as long as someone gives a damn

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

plenty of wild claims not at all supported by their citation

Can you show some examples of this?

[–] null@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Lol this guy is getting ready to edit some articles.

[–] Polar@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

Have you ever looked at the sources? Some pages have some insane blog spam "sources" linked.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's a circular argument. If you can't trust the sources how can you trust the wikipedia article which cites those sources.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

You can trust the sources, because unreliable sources can't be used on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You can check the sources... if the source doesn't check out... Guess what, Wikipedia has given you all the information you need.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In any discipline some part has to be trusted for the next to follow. It is not circular, it is axiomatic. You can do a Descartes to find a "guarantee of truth", but there won't be one. Hence your critique could literally be applied to anything. Check sources and be happy they are freely provided (and donate to Wikipedia).

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's my point, by mistrusting every other website, OP is violating axioms upon which Wikipedia is built, yet still claiming it's trustworthy

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, I now see better what you meant. That is in part a fun little contradiction, but much of Wikipedia's sources are books and articles that come in printed form. These are easier than other websites to verify as sources due to their tangible nature.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But it takes more effort to confirm a tangible source than one on the internet?

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not really. Just sail the high seas with Library Genesis or Sci-Hub. The nature of being published is being non-editable, a digital copy is an okay compromise.

EDIT: There is an issue of trust in piracy, though hardly in practice, but Open Access should help with this.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Oh, you're taking me literally. Sorry I didn't catch that.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Lawl, 1) 25% of Wikipedia in English is unsourced

https://venturebeat.com/ai/how-wikimedia-is-using-machine-learning-to-spot-missing-citations/#:~:text=With%20crowdsourced%20content%2C%20citations%20are,articles%20lack%20a%20single%20citation.

lAwL 2) 77% of Wikipedia is written by 1% of its editors

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#:~:text=If%20the%20original%20information%20in,an%20apparent%20credibility%20to%20falsehood

RaWfL 3) once a source is credited once, it isn't rechecked and can be used as a source on Wikipedia countless times

LmFAo 4) literally anyone saying something does not make it credible or true.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rolfcopter. This guy doesn't know how to use Wikipedia.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You probably learned how to use Wikipedia from Wikipedia, that's how you got so wrong.