Is this meme where retards try to claim wikipedia isn't credible ever going to die?

Wikipedia is actually a pretty credible source for the vast majority of subjects.

I believe there are even papers studying the reliability of Wikipedia and it's of a high standard.

There have been real issues with wikipedia editors citing papers and books that don't actually say what is being claimed. Wikipedia is a nice first glance, but isn't accurate enough to be cited as a source. I've used it as a research tool, but wouldn't value it as a citation.

There are literal fucking papers looking at the reliability of wikipedia and those papers find the content to be of a high standard.

In the context of internet arguments, wikipedia is completely fine, it's completely fine for most things.

It isn't perfect, but it's fairly credible.

Wikipedia disagrees with you

I do agree, for internet arguments it's perfectly fine. But remember arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard.

Did you even read what you linked? I guess you didn't.

Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).

What does this say?

This is just saying wikipedia on it's OWN, as in the content specifically from wikipedia is not a reliable source, not that the content on wikipedia is not reliable.

Better lucky next time.

I was just read through the link you sent. Maybe you should too.

In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, self-described information specialist and Internet consultant[59] Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was "not aware of a single librarian who would". He then explained that "the main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."[60]

And

In 2007, Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association (ALA) stated in an Encyclopædia Britannica blog that "A professor who encourages the use of Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent of a dietician who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything".[62]

And

Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source and because Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence, or credentials in the topics on which they contribute.[66][67] Adrian Riskin, a mathematician in Whittier College commented that while highly technical articles may be written by mathematicians for mathematicians, the more general maths topics, such as the article on polynomials, are written in a very amateurish fashion with a number of obvious mistakes.[68]

Because Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.[66][69][70] The criticism of not being a reliable source, however, may not only apply to Wikipedia but to encyclopedias in general—some university lecturers are not impressed when students cite print-based encyclopedias in assigned work.[71] However, it seems that instructors have underestimated the use of Wikipedia in academia because of these concerns. Researchers and academics contend that while Wikipedia may not be used as a 100 percent accurate source for final papers, it is a valuable jumping off point for research that can lead to many possibilities if approached critically. What may be missing in academia is the emphasis on critical analysis in regards to the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. We should not dismiss Wikipedia entirely (there are less inaccuracies than there are errors of omission) but rather begin to support it, and teach the use of Wikipedia as an education tool in tandem with critical thinking skills that will allow students to filter the information found on the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings.[72]

An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a Nottingham University Business School lecturer in Information Systems,[73] the subject of a review on the technical website Ars Technica,[74] involving 55 academics asked to review specific Wikipedia articles that either were in their expert field (group 1) or chosen at random (group 2), concluded that: "The experts found Wikipedia's articles to be more credible than the non-experts. This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes (10% of the experts reported factual errors of an unspecified degree, 3% of them reported spelling errors)."[75]

Maybe also read the Propagation of misinformation section.

In August 2007, WikiScanner, a tool developed by Virgil Griffith of the California Institute of Technology, was released to match anonymous IP edits in the encyclopedia with an extensive database of addresses. News stories appeared about IP addresses from various organizations such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Diebold, Inc. and the Australian government being used to make edits to Wikipedia articles, sometimes of an opinionated or questionable nature.[116] The BBC quoted a Wikimedia spokesperson as praising the tool: "We really value transparency and the scanner really takes this to another level. Wikipedia Scanner may prevent an organization or individuals from editing articles that they're really not supposed to."[117]

The WikiScanner story was also covered by The Independent, which stated that many "censorial interventions" by editors with vested interests on a variety of articles in Wikipedia had been discovered:

[Wikipedia] was hailed as a breakthrough in the democratisation of knowledge. But the online encyclopedia has since been hijacked by forces who decided that certain things were best left unknown... Now a website designed to monitor editorial changes made on Wikipedia has found thousands of self-serving edits and traced them to their original source. It has turned out to be hugely embarrassing for armies of political spin doctors and corporate revisionists who believed their censorial interventions had gone unnoticed.[118]

In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, self-described information specialist and Internet consultant[59] Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was "not aware of a single librarian who would". He then explained that "the main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."[60]

This doesn't even make sense. It's like some angry old guy whining about bullshit he doesn't comprehend. It's like when certain textbook companies get pissy about the internet and pretend it isn't reliable.

In 2007, Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association (ALA) stated in an Encyclopædia Britannica blog that "A professor who encourages the use of Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent of a dietician who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything".[62]

See above. Notice a trend here?

Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source and because Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence, or credentials in the topics on which they contribute.[66][67] Adrian Riskin, a mathematician in Whittier College commented that while highly technical articles may be written by mathematicians for mathematicians, the more general maths topics, such as the article on polynomials, are written in a very amateurish fashion with a number of obvious mistakes

That's neat, the studies done on the reliability of wikipedia say he's wrong. Why is his opinion more valuable than actual research?

Maybe also read the Propagation of misinformation section.

Again, more bullshit. Sometimes errors or misinformation is posted on wikipedia, it's always corrected fairly quickly though.

I'll say this one more time: the only people you will find screeching about wikipedia, claiming it's not reliable, are old people that work in industries wikipedia and things like wikipedia will put out of business.

They're the same demographic that unironically believes the internet is not a reliable source of information. Wikipedia is not perfect, but wikipedia is of a high standard.

the idea that it isn't is butt-hurt fiction from questionable people that can't handle the future.

you'll also notice a lot of whining about wikipedia within the "crazy right-wingnut" demographic.

That may be because the DCCC has been caught making edits to wikipedia?

Just because you're too dumb to take the olive branch I offered earlier (you know the one where I said wikipedia was a fine reference for online arguments, but I didn't find it sufficient for scholarly work), let me try again.

Wikipedia is great for lazy work that doesn't need to be 100% accurate, but if you want to be as accurate as possible you should only use it as a way to find sources of information on a topic.

The reason encyclopedias are held in higher regard is because there are actual professionals writing about the subject and they are held accountable for their mistakes. That is a pretty big difference between them and wikipedia.

That may be because the DCCC has been caught making edits to wikipedia?

Everyone has been caught editing wikipedia, that's how it works. But the errors are always corrected.

They whine about it because they've put a lot of effort over the years into denying reality to such an extent they think reality is literally biased against them.

Just because you're too dumb to take the olive branch I offered earlier (you know the one where I said wikipedia was a fine reference for online arguments, but I didn't find it sufficient for scholarly work), let me try again.

Aren't you the retard that runs around here losing arguments left and right? Wikipedia is completely fine for MOST things. As we've already established, it's of a high standard.

The reason encyclopedias are held in higher regard is because there are actual professionals writing about the subject and they are held accountable for their mistakes. That is a pretty big difference between them and wikipedia.

Yet the research says wikipedia is comparable to those encyclopedias. Funny how the only people that seem to strongly disagree with that research make a living selling them.

Jfc pizzaboy you’re really hung up on wanting to cite wiki with the same authority as a Nature article, aren’t you?

Wikipedia has (((other issues)))

Solid title op

please continue to explain what a library is this is fascinating I’ve never heard of these so called “books”

/u/goddessofwaterpolo you're in texas, so that's probably true.

who needs books when you’ve got grand poobah rick perry and The Almighty Greg Abbott to educate you 😩😩😩