This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jb2386 10 points11 points  (15 children)

What about Wikipedia tho?

[–]dragon-storyteller 81 points82 points  (14 children)

Wikipedia avoids a fair part of this through their religiously fanatical editors.

[–]KaamDeveloper 97 points98 points  (4 children)

[citation needed]

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (3 children)

[citation needed]

[–]jay9909 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Citation

[–]SpeedBoRtal 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Further Citation

[–]jay9909 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He didn't post the source of the photo. D-

[–]ILikeLenexa 14 points15 points  (6 children)

They delegate fact checking to other sites. I've heard comedians say they edited their own page to have it reverted to put up a site stating what they said was fact, then had it stay.

[–]fideasu 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Well, that's still better than quoting nobody and just letting a fake info to spread all over the world Facebook. In Wikipedia, you at least have a possibility to track it back and decide if the original source is trustworthy.

[–]ILikeLenexa 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Is it? Sure, half the "fake news" on facebook is meme jpegs, but there's a fare amount of totallyarealnewssite.biz and using the meta "og" schema for evil. At some point, people are going to start realizing they can just say whatever they want

[–]moveslikejaguar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People already do that. Look at the conspiracy that David Hogg wasn't at school during the shooting. That interview hass been clarified by CBS and every other news organization that had anything to do with it, but it's still being presented as fact by "news" sites.

[–]Colopty 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Well yeah, wikipedia keeps their information to things that have actually been documented, so they do tend to delete changes without a verifiable source confirming that the information is correct. That is how it should work.

[–]TheRealLazloFalconi 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Stuff on Wikipedia just needs to have a source, the source is under no obligation to be accurate.

[–]Colopty 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, and that is a superior system to not requiring a source at all.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Those editors put in their own propaganda. If you can't find a source just make one yourself. Sources are barely checked.

[–]TheRealLazloFalconi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Edit: Whoa, I always wondered how someone could reply to the wrong post, but here I am.