Discussion Poll: Do you trust Wikipedia on politics-related topics?

[Pessimist]

It's a poll I've seen somewhere else and thought it was interesting.

 

[HarryCobean]

I don't really trust Wikipedia on any topic.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I agree with @HarryCobean , at uni- we were told not to trust Wikipedia on anything- without verifying- seeing as anyone can edit it. I wouldn't trust AI either. What they're referencing could well be wrong! I suppose anything we read/ hear may well have a bias/ agenda behind it though. Especially when it comes to politics.

 

[ImnotCTB]

It doesn't matter where it was from, I don't trust anything. I read from different perspectives then make my own judgement. Not just politics but literally anything.

 

[Seered Doom]

Was taught to do own research and look into more than just one source of information.

 

[InversedShadow]

Better to double-check everything from there and use other sources

 

[EternalShore]

If you're willing to check other language Wikipedias, it tends to be a good starting point or an actually good place to research historical topics given that you don't need additional information that you'll need to search for or scientific topics given that you check and read the papers involved~
In regards to more modern topics, I think it's a good way to have a summary of what's currently in the news but is pretty useless beyond that~ Talking to family members or watching videos about it tends to be my go-to for learning about all that instead~ :)

 

[tormentedhusk]

If you read any political article it's pretty clear that Wikipedia is biased towards the left.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Pessimist]

If you read any political article it's pretty clear that Wikipedia is biased towards the left.

Isn't that why Conservapedia was created?

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

 

[Bblconsumer]

Isn't that why Conservapedia was created?

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

Doesn't conservapedia have an even worse bias?

 

[alwaysalone]

I don't really trust Wikipedia on any topic.

This. You'd be better of asking random people on the street.

 

[Pessimist]

Doesn't conservapedia have an even worse bias?

Yes

 

[Ch4in3dcr0w]

first time hearing about conservapedia but it sounds like absolute hell. From the name alone u can see that it will have insane bias

 

[SilentSadness]

No way, Wikipedia has an extreme mob-rule bias which of course happens to be anti-suicide and pro-natalist. Wikipedia has a nonsensical idea of "neutral" which involves "repeating whatever the popular news sources say verbatim", and when an article gets vandalised they lock it to ensure it can't be fixed. Everything on Wikipedia is flowery and redundant anyway so there's almost no reason to use it. It's just one of those things to avoid if possible.

 

[Pessimist]

first time hearing about conservapedia but it sounds like absolute hell. From the name alone u can see that it will have insane bias

I agree, but Wikipedia is pretty bad too.

 

[Eriktf]

i recamend wikispooks.com

 

[Don’tWakeMe]

Agreed with a few people before me, Wikipedia is good for summaries, but for serious matters, you need to do your due diligence. Wikipedia is like reading the back cover or the dust jacket of a book. It gives you enough information that you have an idea of what you're getting into, but it doesn't have much analytical depth.

I will note, many Wikipedia articles are locked and can't be edited by randos. This is usually reserved for historical figures and events. Just remember that history is written by the winners, and winners are biased.

 

[Pessimist]

Agreed with a few people before me, Wikipedia is good for summaries, but for serious matters, you need to do your due diligence. Wikipedia is like reading the back cover or the dust jacket of a book. It gives you enough information that you have an idea of what you're getting into, but it doesn't have much analytical depth.

I will note, many Wikipedia articles are locked and can't be edited by randos. This is usually reserved for historical figures and events. Just remember that history is written by the winners, and winners are biased.

I'm not sure that the locked articles are more trustworthy. After all, the people editing them aren't historians, academics, or experts on the subject.

 

[theboy]

All the news is manipulated
I am not convinced by the entities that have a good reputation. It is really difficult for a source to be 100% real