this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
80 points (97.6% liked)

Science Memes

11021 readers
3013 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
80
weaponized nerdery (mander.xyz)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That’s wild.

If you knew a person who shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe them? Would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wikipedia isn't a person though. It's a website of articles that summarizes topics and ideally lists sources that contain the info within it. I agree a person that sounds like that is untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean anything on the topic of wikipedia.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Woah.

So, like, if you knew of a website which shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe it? would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It depends on the website. A Twitter post with no source? Untrustworthy. Wikipedia page with plenty of sources to back up the article? I would default to saying trustworthy, but of course I would still have to check the sources myself. Wikipedia is a tool. It connects you to outside sources of info. It has the reputation of being reliable enough to get trustworthy info in its summaries. As I've already stated before, mistakes have been made though.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

you: information on wikipedia shouldn't be taken at face value... it's good to not blindly put your trust in whatever you read from it...

also you: I would default to saying trustworthy...

🤔

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're missing a lot of other points I've made. Let me ask you then what is a reliable source of information? You're skepticism implies nothing is trustworthy if you have to verify information with various sources. Do you only trust what you can observe first hand?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

I promise you, I am not missing any other point you have made. my intent with selectively quoting was to go ahead and knock the legs out from under all the other stuff that rests upon those two statements in order to save us the back and forth of big walls of text.

My skepticism absolutely does not imply that nothing is trustworthy when it has to be verified. It explicitly applies to a website (Wikipedia) which maintains an extensive record of ways in which it has been shown to be systematically untrustworthy.

Within the scope of this discussion, it’s not important what sources of information I would consider trustworthy, we’re only talking about Wikipedia, a source that has a long history of being untrustworthy. We are talking about Wikipedia because it is the subject of the ops post which compares it to the library of Alexandria.