• setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Nope, we all misunderstood what they meant. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, it is a derivative work. However, you can use the sources provided by the Wikipedia article and use the article itself to understand the topic.

    Wikipedia isn’t and was never a primary source of information, and that is by design. You don’t declare information in encyclopedias, you inventory information.

    • krypt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      “Nope” to what exactly? you regurgitated what I said - but told us how you misunderstood it

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Wikipedia was not then what it is now. You’re spot on with all that, spot on, but in the early days it wasn’t nearly as trustworthy.

      • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Fair enough, I’m not old enough to remember those days of Wikipedia, my memory starts in roughly 2010 wrt Wikipedia use 😅

        • ɯᴉuoʇuɐ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          You can check old versions of any article by clicking ‘history’. And yeah, the standards used to be pretty low.