Understand that it isn't MY problem. I find it easy to avoid wikipedia because I know how to do things like -wikipedia.
But I'm not the vulnerable population. Most people don't know to do that, and just think wiki info is fine when it's not.
The results that give 5+ wikipedias on one search are usually long tailed.
Here's one search I just made up:
logic axioms encyclopedia
First 4 hits are wikipedia, all 4 of them are shit. If you just add -wikipedia the results are infinitely better. Therefore, wikipedia is a low quality content farm shitting up the Internet.
It also doesn't help that google, apple products and other services now directly prioritize wikipedia.
Example:
continental philosophy definition
Google first gives a big bold wikipedia box, presenting wikipedia info as if it is the fucking gospel.
Then the next hit is wikipedia.
Then the rest are a mix of reliable sites that wikipedia stole its content from, and wikipedia subsidiaries (Jimmy Wales affiliated) like Citizendium.
How is this considered ok? It's an intellectual travesty and a giant threat to public education. How many people will click the first link, or the giant google endorsed wikipedia box, and ignore all the reliable experts below it?
I just did your "logic axioms encyclopedia" search, it supports what you say about google giving preference to wikipedia. However, if you compare wikipedia's page to britannica's i think it undermines your argument against wikipedia's inferiority. Wikipedia not only has more information, but it also lists all of the contributors and has a complete list of citations. Britannica's banner ad plastered page featured only 3 paragraphs, no citations for deeper reading and no list of contributors to help you evaluate the content. I know this is just a sample size of one, but I think it shows that your opinion is extreme. As I said before, it doesn't matter where you get your info, you have to practice critical thinking and demand sources. I totally see where you are coming from, but i am not convinced that it is as bad as you are making it out to be.
Imo, its the lack of education on how to evaluate information (this includes the ability to determine the "authority" of its sources) that is an intellectual travesty and a giant threat.
Britannica costs $5 a month. Their articles are excellent.
A free source written by top philosphers is Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy. That should be the first hit.
If Wikipedia wants to be a link farm with citations and links to every source on some topic, that might be an OK service. That's not what they are. They claim to be an encyclopedia. They get it 80% right, but 20% wrong is unacceptable for the world's go-to source for information. Especially when the better alternatives are just as accessible; they only lack SEO.
But I'm not the vulnerable population. Most people don't know to do that, and just think wiki info is fine when it's not.
The results that give 5+ wikipedias on one search are usually long tailed.
Here's one search I just made up:
logic axioms encyclopedia
First 4 hits are wikipedia, all 4 of them are shit. If you just add -wikipedia the results are infinitely better. Therefore, wikipedia is a low quality content farm shitting up the Internet.
It also doesn't help that google, apple products and other services now directly prioritize wikipedia.
Example:
continental philosophy definition
Google first gives a big bold wikipedia box, presenting wikipedia info as if it is the fucking gospel.
Then the next hit is wikipedia.
Then the rest are a mix of reliable sites that wikipedia stole its content from, and wikipedia subsidiaries (Jimmy Wales affiliated) like Citizendium.
How is this considered ok? It's an intellectual travesty and a giant threat to public education. How many people will click the first link, or the giant google endorsed wikipedia box, and ignore all the reliable experts below it?