Post #2945250
2026-02-03 20:02 UTC
@LucasWerkmeister@wikis.world @sandyarmstrong@hachyderm.io
The problem is that some of their "corrections" are in fact misconceptions themselves. Welcome to what happens when your next-door-neighbour Joe Blow can edit/admin a page and not check it's correct. I always say Wikipedia is "like an encyclopedia" in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin. Go to reputable sources in the first place (like Maths textbooks for Maths)
https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/115207044364101854
Replies (3)
-
@SmartmanApps@dotnet.social 2026-02-03 20:05
@LucasWerkmeister@wikis.world @sandyarmstrong@hachyderm.io
-
@sandyarmstrong@hachyderm.io 2026-02-03 20:22
@SmartmanApps@dotnet.social @LucasWerkmeister@wikis.world I hope nobody takes any source as absolute truth, be it wikipedia or anything else. It's still a great list and a fun starting point to learn new things. Also, I disagree with your counterexample. 🙂
-
@Raccoon@techhub.social 2026-02-03 20:48
@SmartmanApps@dotnet.social @LucasWerkmeister@wikis.world @sandyarmstrong@hachyderm.io This is a really old misconception that, itself, has been debunked. Numerous fact-checks of Wikipedia have found that, even though it contains inaccuracies, it is just as if not more reliable than other Encyclopedias, on top of having more sources you can follow.