0
43

[–] Falcon2_0 0 points 43 points (+43|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Look at the article for GamerGate... That shows a problem that needs to be fixed.

0
31

[–] weezkitty 0 points 31 points (+31|-0) ago 

It is wise to avoid wikipedia for any controversial topic. In fact, it is best to search many sources to get a better picture of the truth

0
20

[–] GenghisSean 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

That being said, several of their math and computer science articles are wonderful. If it isn't hotly contested (or easily opinionated in general) wikipedia is usually pretty alright.

0
6

[–] 404_SLEEP_NOT_FOUND 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Wikipedia really has always attracted the crazies. I used to (and still do) have a hobby for communist related history. I really appreciate different ideas and how they mold/influence cultures. But there were these nutjobs who edited the communist articles everyday, and got in major fights in the discussion pages. Different kinds. Some would have to get banned (from wikipedia) because they were so militant and difficult to deal with. Others were just annoying and spent their time on religious articles, then went over to the communist articles and trashed them up. The Leon Trotsky article used to be in a great shape thanks to some professors and their spare time. Then in a few months these 2 Mormons just wouldn't stop breaking it up into multiple articles/pages, and making their edits as part of the original article. It used to have history in it, it quickly became a political write-up about how bad communism was/is.

0
0

[–] RedditSucksNow 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Don't the references help determine if the article is a lie?

1
19

[–] Dereliction 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

What a crock of shit that is, eh?

0
33

[–] Grospoliner 0 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago 

It is most notable for a harassment campaign that sought to drive several feminists from the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian.

SJW victimization complex at work. It's not even subtle.

0
2

[–] R0ot 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, and others led prominent industry professionals

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

0
1

[–] Radial 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

wow what a joke that article is...

4
32

[–] RedditCEOEllenPao 4 points 32 points (+36|-4) ago 

Enough with the -gate -ghazi bullshit already

0
7

[–] tonycongo 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

ZOMG COMMENT-GATE

DEFLATE GATE

GHAZI GATE

SERVER GATE

GATE GATE

0
11

[–] SenatorYeezus 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Steins;Gate

0
4

[–] RedditCEOEllenPao 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

GOLDEN GATE

0
0

[–] 404_SLEEP_NOT_FOUND 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

SCHINDLER'S GATE

0
2

[–] pepepepepe 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

But how else will the media sweep legitimate issues under the rug by making people disinterested?

0
0

[–] thrus 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Look something happened in 1972 at a place that legitimately had the word gate in the name, how is it not relevant to use the word gate pertaining to something that happened recently 40+ years later with the word gate not being part of the actual issue? /s

1
28

[–] Astromachine 1 points 28 points (+29|-1) ago 

I think that any federally funded research should be made available to the public at no cost. We paid for it so in many ways it belongs to us.

1
9

[–] Kaizervonmaanen 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

In many countries it IS like that

1
5

[–] christy 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Exactly. NASA info is free, why isn't everything else?

2
8

[–] 234v234v23v23423 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

and heavily censored, they have been caught retouching pictures they could not explain...

9
11

[–] sun_butt 9 points 11 points (+20|-9) ago 

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information. Never use it for actual research.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 38 points (+39|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

12
1

[–] pewpewpewmoon 12 points 1 points (+13|-12) ago  (edited ago)

No. No it can't.

Not only have the sources of information themselves become increasingly questionable over the last couple of years, the term citogenisis came into popularity because of citations that refer back to wikipedia either directly or indirectly.

EDIT : Go down syndrome on me all you want, but it was painfully obvious who used wikipedia for their citations on research papers when I was a TA.

1
6

[–] vicarious 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, it's a synthesis of various other sources, always cited in the "References" sections.

Besides that, there are almost 5 million articles on Wikipedia. A few errors or bias here and there is no different from what you would find in the Encyclopedia Britannica for example and doesn’t' remove from it's usefulness as a research tool.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] TheHammer 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

ArseTechnica does blow, doesn't it? Deepfreeze.it

0
4

[–] SenatorYeezus 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

0
3

[–] MrPim 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Let me just say- fuck Elsevier.

0
2

[–] m-p-3 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

A good workaround would be to allow Wikipedia to provide an archived extract of the paper when it it cited.

load more comments ▼ (9 remaining)