this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
52 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
40038 readers
281 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This was 6 years ago so I cannot recall precisely which pages. However, I just skimmed over about 15 pages that I thought would be riddled with errors. To my surprise, I only found one instance where there was a 'citation needed' mark and could find no major errors...maybe a few little splitting hairs examples but nothing serious.
So, it appears that improvements have been made over the past 6 years. On the other hand, I only looked over roughly 15 pages.
Probably the same caution would be true for any encyclopedia. Namely, these can be pretty good starting points but not for serious scholarly research.
that's cool of you to give it even that brief review! At the end of the day, we 100% agree - Wikipedia is best for surface-level research. But that is what I love it for! Because of Wikipedia, we can all be surface-level experts on almost any topic in minutes. One of the few treasures of living in the 21st century.
I agree. I grew up using hard copy encyclopedias at libraries. It is incredible now to have all of this at our fingertips at home.