2026-01-02 13:44 UTC
There’s a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia too, of many different kinds.
Some smaller pages exists purely for someone’s PR. I’ve seen blatantly false (but “verifiable") stuff too but the most common thing is to have pages that are just creative with the truth.
Also sometimes I’ll notice an article make multiple different claims that all point to the same source and then check the source and realize it is not a valid source for all of those claims, just some.
And also there’s stuff that gets flagged as verified based on extrapolation of data from a combination of sources. For example: one source says “John Doe facing 1 billion dollars fines if found guilty” and another source says “John Doe was found guilty”, then the article says “John Doe fined 1 billion dollars after being found guilty” as verified, then you go search the web and find no mention of any fines actually being issued following the verdict.
Replies (3)
-
@Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-01-02 13:46
Btw this is not an argument against Wikipedia in any way.
-
@CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 2026-01-02 13:53
It’s not just smaller pages. Brands and people pay for PR people to groom their page to present in a good light. Sure, it includes the information but it is groomed to be “neutral” and minimise the negative perception. Look at Musk’s page as an example.
-
@saltesc@lemmy.world 2026-01-02 14:42
I frequently check Wikipedia citations, just to be disappointed. Wiki sources can be a great shortcut to good citations, but often I realise much of an article’s content is built out of the soggiest cardboard.