this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
30 points (91.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26916 readers
1760 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I’m not very familiar with how Wikipedia vets the sources in the references/external links. I was wondering whether there are manual or automated checks for cyclic sources, for example a Wikipedia page cites a source for something, but such source after a few rounds of citing would go back to the same Wikipedia page.

  • Does that happen with Wikipedia?
  • Does it matter? I presume that would invalidate the source?
  • How do they make sure it does not happen? Is there an automated check or something?
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] can@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
[–] inspxtr@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

lol there really is an xkcd for everything!

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 3 points 1 year ago

That actually once happened deliberately with the page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg. It's a German politician with a lot of names. So someone added another name to the list and after a short editing war some online publications picked it up and he was able to end the editing war by citing them as sources.

I think it stayed there for several weeks and many many journalists justs blindly copied the name from Wikipedia.

https://bildblog.de/5704/wie-ich-freiherr-von-guttenberg-zu-wilhelm-machte/

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago

Wikipedia does not check if the sources themselves cite Wikipedia. I mean they can, but they rarely do.

This has led to situations where a falsehood keeps getting added because it has a “reliable source” and editors are too lazy to question it.

[–] liori@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From my experience, despite all the citogenesis described in other comments here, Wikipedia citations are still better vetted than in many, many scientific papers, let alone regular journalism :/ I recall spending days following citation links in already well-cited papers to basically debunk basic statements in the field.

[–] inspxtr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you give an example if you remember for the last point you made?

[–] liori@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I do not have notes from that time anymore, sorry. I do recall though that after following a chain of citations I ended up at the paper in the center of this controversy. Nobody sane would cite in now except to point out its flaws, but if there's a modern paper that cites a 10 year old paper that cites a 30 year old paper that cites it—people usually won't notice.