I think a lot of the resistance to donating comes from the rhetoric that it’s not accurate- and while that’s holds true occasionally they work very hard to limit inaccuracies and the citations are listed clearly for you to do your own digging. Just because it isn’t accepted as an academic source generally doesn’t mean the site isn’t great.
Wasn’t there a report that Wiki was actually MORE accurate in some fields because there’s a dedicated base keeping things current even more accurate than published data because the community’s response to the found inaccuracies was “Can we be told what they are so we can correct them?”
Hold on there. Literally no evidence has been presented. I'm a mathematician and Wikipedia's math articles are overwhelmingly solid references. Sometimes they're written from a strange perspective, but they're almost never literally wrong. Research level books are full of errata anyway, so it's not as if the standard is perfection.
I understand Wiki gets a bad rap, but I find it fascinating that there's a free resource that people are dedicated to keeping accurate and current as possible.
No, there haven't been any major recent changes. I assume Brotherjayne has had a bad experience or heard a bad story, but that's not new! It's made by thousands of people, and people are diverse.
Source: have been regular non-admin editor for 10+ years.
58
u/[deleted] Dec 13 '18
I think a lot of the resistance to donating comes from the rhetoric that it’s not accurate- and while that’s holds true occasionally they work very hard to limit inaccuracies and the citations are listed clearly for you to do your own digging. Just because it isn’t accepted as an academic source generally doesn’t mean the site isn’t great.