Wikipedia Overreliance

>>2226693
Except that reliance is totally justified

>Wikipedia is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet[4][5][6] and is ranked among the ten most popular websites.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

>>2226698
>Wikipedia is true because Wikipedia says it's true.

>>2226693

>stop using an easy to find, simple to use reference that supports it's statements with citations

>>2226702
A book is true because it's a book.

>>2226698
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
kek

Sounds like someone lost an argument recently.

>>2226728
This, can we have story time OP?

>>2226707

1. Not all statements are supported by citations (one example would be troop numbers and casualties for battles (~98% of wiki screencaps on /his/)
2. Sometimes wiki authors conclude things from their sources which these source don't really say
3. Non-scientific sources (newspaper articles, webzines, organizations etc.) or controversial authors
4. Biased selection of sources
5. Omissions of important aspects of a topic

Another weak point is that a considerable proportions of wiki history editors are politically or nationalistically motivated, so you always got to keep an eye on that

>>2226858

You are not as smar as you think.

Can you recomendamos a reliable online source for history then?

For philosophy I recommend the Stanford encyclopedia

https://plato.stanford.edu

>>2226693
>>2226858
Thing is, when you are in the middle of an INTERNET ARGUMENT you can't take 3 hours to find proper sources. You need something decent and you need it fast.

Think if wikipedia as a coffee table book.

Besides it's hard as shit to find websites dedicated to certain autismically specific topics, and if you add to that possible different significances to a term (say, because a movie or videogame has a similar title) you are fucked.

>>2226858

So like litterally every other source of information ever written then?

>>2226897
Ah, yes, and also the fact that it HAS to be a website because you need to be able to link the information.

You could never get away with sending someone to read an actual book.

File: image.png (293KB, 546x654px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 546x654px

>>2226693
OP literally cannot stop sucking black cocks

>>2226693
This thread sucks and I truly hope OP dies of a painful disease

>>2226693
I always loved anti-Wikipedia hatred from these guys pretending to be smart. As if any sources freely available on the internet (in ENGLISH because Western nerds only know that language) are somehow less "unreliable".

And actual peer-reviewed scientific articles are rarely FREE, or fully available, so you might as well be posting trap porn.
And even you find those, the guy you're talking to will dismissed it because he thinks the authors were biased nazicommies or some other nonsense.

>>2226892
El auto corrector te traicionó eh amigo?

>>2226901

these weak points are ten times more pronounced on wikipedia though

I know that academic studies arent the holy grail, but it's usually much more preferable

>>2227002
>these weak points are ten times more pronounced on wikipedia though

do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>2226892

JSTOR
academia.edu
google books previews also yield decent results pretty often

those aren't as convenient as an encyclopedia where you just type in something and get a summary though

>>2227010

what would that be for example?

It's just my personal experience, obviously I can't just conduct a comparative analysis between wikipedia and conventional scientific sources

>>2226978
Sí

>>2227016
Jstor is not freely available for anyone, though.

>>2227096
*not freely available for everybody, I mean.

>>2226953
>And actual peer-reviewed scientific articles are rarely FREE, or fully available,
A majority if good sources are rarely free. For books google books is garbage and will cut you off in the middle of reading about a subject. Unless it is on bookzz you will either have to buy it (and some textbooks or academic works can easily cost 200+) or get a inter library loan. Other than SSRN Wikipedia is one of the best things we have.

1. Some faggot asks some stupid question
2. He could have looked it up
3. Look it up for him and post the fucking thing
4. ?????
5. PROFIT!!!1!

If you want to have a discussion that's one thing, but most of these fucking threads are some stupid underage anon asking some fucking stupid ass question that he could have fucking answered for himself in 10 seconds with Wikipedia.

>>2226905
Because telling someone to "read a book" isn't an argument. You have to provide backing for your arguments directly, not tell someone to go buy a back and wait for it to be delivered just so you can be proven right.

>>2227196
I know, that's why I'm saying that you can't do that.

>>2227131
How easy is it to find those kinds of things online on torrent sites and the likes?

>>2226693
4chan and Wikipedia are the same level of quality. I don't see why anyone would expect more. Especially if they don't add more to the table.

OP should make and example of himself and start using better sources. If it's good than others people will follow

Well yeah I'd rather have people quote primary scientific papers, but that wont happen.
Last week I tried to find a good source on 300 B.C male population of China, took me a good part of an hour because I had nothing better to do at that time. I wont do it for everytime somebody shits out an uniformed opinion and I can't expect people to do the same.
Sometimes when people quote Wikipedia you can recognize the primary source in the bottom list and if necessary, tell why it's dodgy. I'd rather have people quote Wiki than fucking blogs or conservapedia

Which logical fallacy is it to discredit the information found in a source solely based on the source?

>>2227777
Damn that get.

>>2227777
Ad hom.

File: kekbyterian.jpg (8KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 320x320px

>>2227777
>>2227799
>>2227800

>>2226858
So.... biased like every other source in history?

File: c0e[2].gif (65KB, 680x703px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 680x703px

>>2227777
>>2227799
>>2227800
Fascinating.

>>2227800
I'm pretty sure it isn't that

>>2227225
It's virtually impossible. Even very popular history books rarely get pirated. It doesn't help that many seminal works are not available in digital form at all.

File: Wicket W Warrick.jpg (227KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1252x1252px

>>2226693
1/Read the Tao Te Ching
2/Compare all available translations
3/????
4/Profit

>>2226953
>And actual peer-reviewed scientific articles are rarely FREE

>what is sci-hub

LOL it's not difficult to access any scientific publication you want in 2017, get with the times nerd.

>>2226897
>waaahhhh it's too hard to use Google Scholar omg it takes me three hours to find a real source

The problem with using Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopedia. You don't throw the Encyclopedia Britannica at people whenever they want to discuss ancient Rome or the First Crusade, so I don't understand why you would throw Wikipedia at them for any other reason but the sheer laziness that characterizes this board and its level of conversation.

Only an elitist fuck complain about Wikipedia.

>>2229100
People aren't complaining about Wikipedia, people are complaining about its abuse. Wikipedia is not the be all and end all of human knowledge and the tacit assumption that it is so has degraded this board to one line statements where nothing is learned and people endlessly parrot what they've read off of an online encyclopedia for conversation.

If you want to put in the barest minimum, start a history thread on /b/ or /r9k/ or something similar. Not here.

There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia.

There's something definitely wrong with ONLY using Wikipedia.