https://mobile.twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318

I guess three years was a good run: https://mobile.twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1043859278774370305

  • ancom20 [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    This! It's still a problem in academia also, I remember at university they would not let you (and afaik still don't) cite Wikipedia. Has to be all "academic", in other words institutionally approved sources (books, official statements etc).

      • ancom20 [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Agree, the point was more about only "legit" sources being acceptable. Which do have their own biases. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816

    • Philosoraptor [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      That's less a bias issue than it is an issue with what kinds of sources in general are appropriate for citation in academic writing. The issue is not with Wikipedia itself, but rather with the fact that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, like any encyclopedia. I think most professors on the younger side recognize Wikipedia as a generally reliable source for information (with some exceptions). It's a great place to start your research, but it's usually far too general to be of use in constructing a good paper. It's useful for orienting yourself, getting a 10,000 meter view on a subject, or learning what the general professional consensus is about some issue (again, with some exceptions--it's much less trustworthy when it comes to current events and politics than it is when it comes to quantum mechanics), but it should be a jumping off point, like any other tertiary source.