When it comes to political topics, Wikipedia is very biased. People like Hillary Clinton had staff monitoring her pages and removing things that were too negative, even if they were fully sourced and considered true. But anyone who tried to edit out a negative thing on Trump’s page, the page would be locked by the admins. And anything too positive about Trump would be removed for various BS reasons. One of the two founders of Wikipedia himself has stated that Wikipedia was captured by the ‘elites’.

Wikipedia is unreliable. Sure it's cites things and lots of the info is very good most of the time but generally the more obscure and the more non western the topic is the worse the reliability is

@@micayahritchie7158 so instead of saying “don’t use Wikipedia” they should be pointing out “maybe look into the sources Wikipedia is using”

Had a teacher who wouldnt let us type essays because they could be plagerized. But like.. i could literally handwrite a fake essay, anyone could lol

@@misterghoul9457 I agree with you but is still a wiki and you definitely can catch it at a bad time. Also these people likely have memories from when it was much worse for reliabity

Bro forgot to clear it.

What about their "homework" folder?

​@@captain_chocolatehi son, y didnt u let the teacher c ure browser history??🩴

@@rodrigoqteixeira setting an example. He can't legally force me to show him.

@@rodrigoqteixeira it's about sending a message

Yes but google translate is actually bad

I mean they have a reason for the Google translate

Google translate is bad. Direct translations can give you an idea of what someone is saying or what something reads, but Google translate ignores context and could even miss context you need to see

more like biggest enemies

​@@Alex-pl4pkIt's even worse for a language that uses conjugation to determine order of the sentence like Latin. It only gives you one variant of the word one it might be passive or future.

But he's a highly trained professional 😢

@@jakedoesyoutube Exactly, which is why he never dies. They're just spreading misinformation

HLVRAI FAN IN THE WILD

Hole

Hello Gordon

Watched this as he said it

😂😂

I'd prefer not to reveal his search history 😂😂😂😂

💀🙏

Same😅😳

Realll 💀

But it’s literally the most trusted site 😂

It’s a site for free information that’s contributed to by masses. The government doesn’t want that.

The only valid criticism of Wikipedia I’ve seen is by Adam Ragusea who basically just said that Wikipedia homogenizes the info if you’re trying to make something interesting and it’s good to support those silly little websites about a random topic that someone poured their heart into. It’s also not the best way to look at contentious topics because of the fact that it is mainly one or two people writing per article and everyone has a bias.

Mine would say you could use it to find sources and use those as the source.

That’s the actually useful t part of Wikipedia. It gives you sources you can’t find on Google like books and articles.

@@Cyancat123have you tried google scholar, it shows books and articles

It's a good starting point! Wikipedia cites their sources in the articles! It's super useful!

Exactly lol when I was still in school id just use the sources they used as proof and theyd fall for it

That’s what my teacher actually told us to do

I’m glad im not the only one that picked up on that 😂

fr 😭 i was like whatt??

😭😭

I felt like I was going crazy looking for this comment

bro same 😂

I feel like this is decent advice. Although fun fact MLA actually has a way to cite tweets officially now if you ever need to quote a tweet lmao

W teacher, we love an authority figure who actually justifies their rules 🤌

Okay but maybe instead of that. You could just say have other sources besides Wikipedia.

@@Meme-Weeb-Dweebagreed. but like op said people are lazy and will still just use it

​@@sakurasensations4786 thats lazy of the teacher tho

It's lazy of the teacher to justify their rules???@@musicalsaber6433

Literally same 😂 They’re like fiiiine you can use the works cited list. Lmao

ehh

yeah it really depends of the course tho too. like for most of my courses we only use jstor or actual books and journals found from references in jstor because of how niche everything is or because it’s not widely known information outside the area of the field

Fuck your college. id drop out if I heard that. switch colleges

​@@kassiekelnhofer3544 I edit Wikipedia sometimes and I use JSTOR to find sources lol

E‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

That one role she did in Shazam:

517 likes and zero likes? Imma change it

Strong “welcome to Costco I love you” vibes

Wikipedia says it’s under your desk

I can

When it comes to STEM, Wikipedia is usually pretty okay. When it comes to ANYTHING that can be affected by an ideology? NEVER trust it. In general, just use Wikipedia to get sources and read through them, not the Wiki. You'll gain a much better understanding.

Do you not get the meme or something this comment genuinely confused me what do you mean by this?

@@BigAJ50000they understand the joke about hiding his browser history and they are saying that they know the comments are going to be giggling over this like middle schoolers lol

Wait do you get the joke and wanna laugh about it or did you not get the joke and went to the comments to figure it out?

@@McKenzieS.-zb1lhyeah I’m a bit befuddled as to the behavior here as well.

@@DaddyDumptruckDeluxe lol yeah idk what they were trying to day as why they went to the comments and I don't think it's the 2nd replyers explanation

A fellow scholar. Wiki is off-limits, but it's 300 .edu and .gov sources are most definitely are not.

Yah, this is brig brain time

This is what got me through HS lol

Protip if you need MORE sources. Get one of the books that fits your assignment the most. Then get all the books (or articles) this book lists as sources. Cite these books. (And you will probably be able to do a real deep dive into the topic and understand different view points).

and klick ojn the sites to check if the source is really there but yea. That way youll have it in your browser aswell and sue your teacher after showing him.

Exactly. People online LOVE being correct and making others look stupid. Wikipedia uses that to their advantage.

ive heard multiple stories of people who weren't even vandalizing the sites, that got banned within hours because their information was slightly off wikipedia is literally the most used site (probably. dont fact check me idk) about information people would know if it's wrong. nerds on the internet are in the MILLIONS.

Depends on your definition of vandalism. There are literally companies you can pay to slander people on their and related Wikipedia articles. There are political forums dedicated to keeping certain articles ideologically correct. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.

@@carlpanzram7081 uh, thats vandalism. and some nerd will undo that company's changes within hours, again. AND along with that, EVERY article has rigorous citation of sources, i've seen some with hundreds! and if they don't have sources, you'll see "citation needed" or the HUGE banner saying "this article needs more sources for verification". it is VERY VERY unlikely to find misinformation on wikipedia, and if you dont trust it, just go to the page and scroll down to the sources.

@@carlpanzram7081 Though as the video said, I doubt that will happen to Catcher in the Rye 😂

That's true because they constantly fill it with opinion, hence why you use the sources they use and read those sources

I mean that is kinda true, but it's good enough for any high school project you'll need to do

@@SubtotalStar850-uh8pgi've actually never seen an article filled with opinions

​@@nutronstar45ive seen a few things definitely tweaked/changed but not blatantly obvious

I agree, it's also useful to get sources and (in some cases) images. Now I just gotta explain that to the walking fossil I have for my religion teacher

You should be IMMEDIATELY paranoid as to why they said that. Its usually for an ideological reason. As any self-respecting researcher will tell you, Wikipedia is fine for sources. But do NOT trust anything it says.

No fr! Scared to go on it for any reason

Nothing to fear about a free site with information from the people. They teach against it because it’s exactly what the government doesn’t want.

SAAAME only recently I'm finding out it's actually a good site!

same 😭😭 im trying to get over it but i end up scrolling down to britannica

😭😭😭😭​@@gfasanartist4137

Or not using ChatGPT lol

In Computer Science, for The first quarter, we weren't allowed to. And then, my teachers made an error that took them 3 class periods to find out because they wouldn't look on Stack Overflow. One of my friends looked it up and found the answer in 5 minutes. Stack Overflow is now perfectly allowed

@@anaqueen1646reminds me when I took a theater production class. One of our first assignments was using this software to design lighting. The class after it was assigned/when it was due the professors asked what we thought of the program and no one said anything, then they said “you can be honest” and we all started talking about how much it sucks. The response? “Yea everyone hates it” and there are apparently much better softwares that people actually use now, so why tf did we use that one when most of us are actors only taking this class because it’s required?

@greenbeantm1096 my first thought is that the professor would say "...well thank you for your honesty"

@@anaqueen1646 they were a little bit surprised at how much my class hated it but were mostly just like “makes sense” 😂 (for the record the class was taught by two professors)

Eeeeuuch...... _Technically_ that twitter account _could_ be a primary source (depending on type of information being sourced), which would make it superior, but probably not... Encyclopedias of any kind are never primary sources and shouldn't be used as citations. But that doesn't make them unreliable (in fact, often good starting points to finding primary sources). And that doesn't mean primary sources are necessarily reliable, just that they are the primary source for that information. Doesn't mean the information is correct.

twitter primary source but maybe not good encyclopedia not good citations, yes good starting point primary source not mean reliable but just mean primary source not mean information correct ​@@TheLuckyblockbro

@@TheLuckyblockbroA primary source is the originator for that specific datum. So hypothetically a twitter account could be a primary source on information about what someone said or is claimed to have said. Or they are making some claim based on their opinion or expertise. Because the person said it on twitter. That is the source, the origin, for that information. Whereas a secondary or tertiary source of information, like an encyclopedia, would be reporting what some other source of information was telling. Hence, in some cases a shitty twitter account would be a more primary source. But again, that doesn't mean anything about it's reliability. In most cases this would be a *terrible* source, but it would be a primary source.

@@tylisirn that is the point they were making, bc like a tweet from a local news anchor would be fine. But the juxtaposition of allowing Twitter and not Wikipedia, then to show a fake blue check was just hilarious lol. Obviously it's all pretty irrelevant now since blue checks don't hold the same weight

This is true. Use it like an encyclopedia, not a source.

The risk is that if the pages touches any kind of controversy then they will have only sources praising one side and demonizing the other. It does not give a full view of the topic

One of my students got brainwashed that all Wikipedia's articles are misinformation. I even told them to check the source if they didn't think the articles did enough to represent them, and they still think it is all false/fake information, yes even the source. I am 100% sure the gen Y teachers is the one doing these skeptical hit pieces against information sites, cause all the gen Z teachers I worked with all do as you have said.

​​@@williamjenkins4913so...like American textbooks?

​@@williamjenkins4913 yeah don't use it for any political issue, it's nearly pure opinion

I did this all through high school and college 😂

My teacher said this two

I had a professor exactly like this! She wasn't hating on Wikipedia, just wanted us to use it the proper way.

knowing the state of most wikipedia sources... 😭 I wouldn't (last time i edited an article, over half the links were dead!)

@@remingtonn_that's the thing. even if the LINK is dead, you can find where it was linking to with minimal work (and with additional you can get into whatever paywall, but that's a whole other story)

Nah we going back to that meme

​@@OnRepeatShortsit's never been dead

They're a good option because low quality bows are very cheap to make but still work

@@eetuthereindeer6671 Did you look that up on Wikipedia?

@@bdkq1902 no 😄

Bro has a point

Yea I would rather destroy my... everything everything I would destroy jt

It probably is unrelated. If you know, you know.

Man ngl, I think my reason sucks. I have read the entire one piece wiki cover to cover. Met a furry in a discord server, could host an AMA on furries. You would be dead and gone before you made it past fandom links.

We got similar names brother

There's a software that they send everything through that tells them what's been copied and what not. It's in colleges to. That's mainly how they catch people plagiarizing. Simply copy pasting will send them to wiki. The program though does it for them.

Lmaoo

Finally someone with a brain

I’m a technology teacher and I tell every kid to use Wikipedia. It’s the only major information site kids typically access that doesn’t change answers based on an algorithm.

Just make sure you check that the source says what the author claims it says! Don't do it sight unseen 😅

​@@WimikkIt's extremely biased and corrupt when it comes to anything political or Personal. There are literally wars between companies you can pay to edit pages, and also conspiracies in political forums to make sure certain articles adhere to their worldview.

@carlpanzram7081 Any specific examples of this bias and corruption happening? Cause, regardless of the edits, you can't add info that isn't backed up by valid sources. Curious as to how what you're impying works.

same

Considering the way Wikipedia works, this makes perfect sense. I love Wikipedia. But I also check the sources from time to time just to make sure it's accurate.

Almost all my school teachers were like that too

Def check sources tho. My friends edited it to say o was principle of the school. It was like that till 2 years after we all graduated

@@megaluscusfry3852 Even if you check the sources, there could still be an inherent bias to the topic and because of that it might lack some important sources.

Biases are extremely common in the military side of wiki aswell, mostly with aircraft and tanks

government they dont want free information from the people they want you to trust .gov sites

I second this!!!! College professors: "if it's very important to your college experience you may call me Professor Grant but otherwise please call me Chase" High school teachers: "I didn't go through seven years of college and acquire hundreds of thousands of dollars of dept for you to call me Sam"

Right. My college prof is in our WhatsApp groupchat and he doesn't care at all what we call him 😂 He's awesome

That definitely depends on the professor, but I have had this experience.

same.....funny that i think about it

Bruh school is stupid

At my school they did not want us to play games but they did not block the websites that allowed us to play games in the laptops browser.

​@@Aidan_Neff well you can't exactly block google

Yeah and I bet that edit (assuming it was untrue) persisted for like 5 minutes or realistically a week tops. Or the teacher didn’t and said he did just to stop people from doing it. Probably the latter. But putting false info in a wiki is tough. The page creators and editors responsible for that page will be notified and take edits seriously or revert them even if not for the truth, for self serving reasons. They’ll usually edit other edits just so their contributions bubble to the top, and even though it’s ego centric and a little self serving, it does motivate the moderators to curate the pages and check edits.

​@@jessepardue8156I had a teacher in middle school do the same. Ton of kids have stupid ass reports on the bubonic plague. If anyone is lying it is the fucking Troll who is going through all the comments and trying to argue in favor of Wikipedia. Like dude that makes you a corporate rat. And none of what you said is even remotely true. Provide any fucking Proof that what you said is true for every single thing in Wikipedia. Because ours are anecdotes. They don't need to be proven.

Really? Damn that is some serious dedication

​@@mufinboi975oh you sweet summer child, you do NOT know how mad those nerds can get when vandalism or anything like that occurs. They take their hobby *really* seriously. «Starring» an article and getting a notification everytime someone changes a thing in it, is a thing.

​@@saulgoodmanKAZAKHI still wouldn't trust it for anything worthwhile or topical like israel-palestine. Because for every loser trying to keep the information "factual" a hundred people will wanna put their biases on it

Tech and hard facts are fine.

​@williamjenkins4913 and yet what do you consider to be hard facts? People still make the false claim that alcohol warms the body.

​@@johnclaybaugh9536And the hard facts is that Alcohol doesn't, it only makes you think that.

@Drghost1235 and you thought I didn't know that why? Good grief.

@@johnclaybaugh9536 'People still make the false claim-' You made a general term instead of including the word 'some'. I simply helped in aiding it further by stating the obvious.

Wikipedia is very selective about primary sources, and not necessarily in a good way.

Doesn't Wikipedia only allow secondary sources though?

Because it’s easier than the alternative and a lot of em just want to keep you busy and make things more difficult.

Because some fifteen or so years ago Wikipedia wasn't nearly as trustworthy as it is nowdays. Back when it emerged, Wikipedia was often poorly sourced and extremely opinionated (and non-English wikipedia often suffers from this still), which led to many professors to distrust it at the time. Times change, but if you're a professor who's avoided it for the past 15 years, chances are you simply aren't vividly aware of how much it has improved, and thus many professors still distrust it.

The Co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger said that Wikipedia “seems to assume that there is only one legitimate defensible version of the truth on any controversial question. That’s not how Wikipedia used to be.”

theyre not paid by the government to shill government sites