School vs. Wikipedia

How about "desert"? Wikipedia's "desert" article said for almost a year that the mean winter temperature in cold deserts, such as those found in Greenland and Antarctica, is typically between +4 and –2 °C.

False info inserted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=prev&...

False info deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=60327...

The desert article was classified as a "Good article" during that time and got about a million views. This is not an obscure article, nor was the article on Maurice Jarre at the time of his death, which is why the hoax instantly entered newspapers around the world.

So I accept your point to a degree: many of the topics mentioned in that article are very obscure, but even a high-visibility, highly trafficked article can contain absolute balderdash mixed in with solid information and really good writing.

I'm also not trying to make an argument against Wikipedia – I am a Wikipedian and I love Wikipedia, and use it daily, but it's important to be aware of its weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

I am very pro-wikipedia.

If there's a problem with Wikipedia or even just the way that people use Wikipedia then I think it should be discussed, because that improves Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is an amazing human achievement.

I'll repeat my comment the last time this came up, that if you want a basic summary (probably more suitable for school) then the simple English Wikipedia exists.

It is slightly less likely to have a long rambling article.

I personally like the long rambling articles, because the point of a wiki should be to be easily updated, to harness the most intellectual input, and I feel it often better reflects reality than a polished summary.

But there is a place for polished summaries. Probably won't be long before they are done by AI (introducing more fascinating philosophical questions) but for now simple human written pages are available.

There seems to be some concerted movement to not fund Wikipedia, I'd encourage people to both donate money and time. The easiest way to get that money spent is by having lots of people using and improving Wikipedia and its sister projects.

I get where you're coming from but it's not really practical. (For a start, how to decide which user is a first-time user, if there even is such a thing today?)

What I will say is that for a while the Wikimedia Foundation was trumpeting things like that somewhat flawed Britannica study and gave out PR messages along the lines of "See, we are reliable and as good as Britannica. Even doctors trust us." (Some journalists are still promoting that sentiment, and I think they are doing everyone a disservice. Example: https://twitter.com/Wikiland/status/1569781042764222464 Nobody should trust Wikipedia.)

Around 2016 though the Wikimedia Foundation shifted emphasis and its CEO would say things like "We don't guarantee accuracy, do check the references cited in the article". That was the right thing to do.

The rest is up to users now. I am all in favour of sharing stories of how things can go wrong when people trust Wikipedia blindly. Here are a few:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37523772

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-ho...

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-a-ra...

https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/16/wikipedia_16_birthday...

> But you know what I’ve found ?

That you can stick a space between the last word and the question mark to annoying effect, I suppose.

> The rest of what you said

Is mostly disheveled in its organization to the point where I can’t really respond effectively. Glad to know private schools are failing people as well, I guess.

Nevertheless

> I disagree.

Seriously, with what. From context it seems to be that you disagree with using online searches other than Wikipedia (or maybe Jstor) for research purposes but you put “I disagree” right in the vicinity of (a) question about budget relation to public school being a shitshow (b) the fact that you went to private school and (c) that your private school lamented the use of Wikipedia, something I also disagreed with. Based on all I’ve said and what you’ve said, what you disagree with remains unclear, and vaguely discernible from contextual clues.

> Why is it the budget’s fault (that public school is bad)

Have you watched the news lately, there’s like a weekly or monthly school shooting. Have you ever had free lunch? How many teachers do you know in the public school system that retire financially secure? What is the national average for college attendance out of public schools, then compared to that of other nation’s numbers? How effectively do public schools campaign for and encourage students to pursue higher education? Public school budgets could benefit from federal spending increases (as one option but literally any source would make a difference) to increase mental health resources, acquiring better teachers, encouraging better educators to work in public schools, improving resources available for education, I mean do I really have to exhaust this laundry list?

> But you know what I’ve found? It’s hard to read primary sources.

Respectfully what does that have to do with anything. This sounds like a reading disability, not a condemnation of… what, online articles? Are you a bot? I swear you must be a bot. This makes no sense.

> Ad-filled webpages

Get an ad-blocker? Scroll past Google’s search suggestions?

> Google search is bad because it tries to guess…

Then use DuckDuckGo, or alternative du jour. “Googling” is a widely-accepted synonym for “web search”.

> learn to find and use primary sources...

Except that Wikipedia policy is only to use secondary sources, otherwise it is considered original research.