Counterpoint: A single American teenage devastated worldwide understanding of the Scottish language by editing half the articles on Scots Wikipedia. The encyclopedia will take years to fix and some claim the damage is irreparable.https://twitter.com/boobhaver420/status/1317919795594088450 …
-
Pokaż ten wątek
-
Ana Mardoll podał/a dalej Josh Baker-Cox
Ana Mardoll dodał/a,
Josh Baker-Cox @JoshBakerCoxI am absolutely creasing. So, it turns out that 49% of the Scots Language Wiki has been written by a 19 year old American with NO knowledge of the language itself. They also made 20,000 edits which included overruling native speakers. Cannot make it up https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-an-aw-us-teenager-wrote-huge-slice-of-scots-wikipedia …1 odpowiedź 30 podanych dalej 304 polubionePokaż ten wątek -
Ana Mardoll podał/a dalej Andy Bohan #Underdogs 🇮🇪
Ana Mardoll dodał/a,
Andy Bohan #Underdogs 🇮🇪 @andygmb1Holy shit this is amazing (and sad for the Scots language) The Scots version of WIkipedia has been primarily edited by an American child who does not actually know the language at all. The entire Wiki is apparently gibberish to actual Scots speakers https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wikipedia-written-by-american-in-mangled-english …1 odpowiedź 20 podanych dalej 269 polubionychPokaż ten wątek -
The idea that "Nobody can twist shit to an agenda without ppl noticing and fixing it." really depends on: 1. The article being something regularly visited/looked at by subject matter experts (who can notice the disinfo). 2. The article editors being actual experts.
2 odpowiedzi 53 podane dalej 567 polubionychPokaż ten wątek -
Wikipedia absolutely is "untrustworthy" for a given snapshot in time, which is why most citation standards of websites include the date you accessed the material, because online information can change from day to day. It *may* be trustworthy OVER TIME, on some subjects.
2 odpowiedzi 33 podane dalej 430 polubionychPokaż ten wątek -
That doesn't mean that a book is more truthful than Wikipedia, it just means that a (paper) book can't change from day to day to day on the whims of an editor. It has a permanence of information that has nothing to do with its truthiness.
1 odpowiedź 31 podanych dalej 365 polubionychPokaż ten wątek -
What OP is arguing is that Wikipedia is trustworthy over time, which may or may not be true, but is not relevant for a source in a paper. (It's not usually appropriate to cite encyclopedias in papers, anyway. You use encyclopedias to find primary + secondary sources to cite.)
3 odpowiedzi 21 podanych dalej 346 polubionychPokaż ten wątek -
Anyway: “This is going to sound incredibly hyperbolic and hysterical,” wrote Ultach, “but I think this person has possibly done more damage to the Scots language than anyone else in history. They engaged in cultural vandalism on a hitherto unprecedented scale.”
2 odpowiedzi 25 podanych dalej 264 polubionePokaż ten wątek
Same kind of flawed logic exists with open source software at times. Just because people can check the source to see if it's secure or not malicious, doesn't mean people actually *are* doing that. OSS and Wikipedia are essential, but it's important to remember they have flaws.
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.

