Comment on weaponized nerdery
gayhitler420@lemm.ee 3 months agoThat’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?
DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz 3 months ago
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.
gayhitler420@lemm.ee 3 months ago
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?
DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz 3 months ago
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.
gayhitler420@lemm.ee 3 months ago
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…
🤔