I’m wondering if I take this at face value (Thanks for the writeup!), how it will affect the way I use Wikipedia. I figure I use it in several ways:
- To get a quick overview on a technical topic (e.g. how cipherblock chaining works in block encryption)
- To get a quick overview on a non-technical topic (e.g. the war of 1812)
- To understand the background, motivations, players, in a complex world event (e.g. The Iran nuclear agreement, the founding of Israel)
#1 has been very useful and I frequently go back to such topics to remember this stuff and never had a problem. It doesn’t present all the information, but it’s very good.
#2 has been useful as well but often important points are left out that I find elsewhere if I go deeper into a topic . But it’s helpful as an overview, and I usually don’t do much research other than Wikipedia if it’s something that just isn’t that important to me. (E.g. if I’m just curious or want a little background before watching a movie on the topic). Any mistakes would probably bias me, and that’s not good, but if I were really interested in the topic, I would definitely go to places other than Wikipedia to verify and get more detail (e.g. purchasing a book, looking at a variety of sources on the Internet). Which segues to #3
#3 if I were really serious about the topic I would do something similar to #2, I would start with Wikipedia, just to get familiar with the topic, knowing that much of the information, especially regarding the deeper analysis such as the people involved, their motivation, what happened, is probably not very accurate. Yes again there is a bias, but I’m well aware to not trust a source like Wikipedia for anything complex.
But that’s me. So I’m not sure to what extent this would change my behavior. But this could affect other less diligent people (e.g. Fake news is spread by people who aren’t diligent). Plus Wikipedia should not violate their own principles, just on principle, plus they set an example for other sites. So it is important.
