undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJadeNB2y ago0 comments

> And that's for good reason. Encyclopedias are supposed to be tertiary sources, not primary sources. Having an explicit cited reference makes it easier to judge the veracity of a statement compared to digging through the page history to figure out if a line was added by a person who happens to be an expert.

But why is a reference to "[1] Blog post by XXX" (or, even worse, "[1] Blog post by YYY based on their tentative understanding of XXX") a more authoritative source than "[1] Added to Wikipedia personally by XXX"? Of course, Wikipedia potentially has no proof that the editor was actually XXX in the latter case; but they have even less proof that a blog post purporting to be by XXX actually is.

0 comments

kibwen2y ago

> Wikipedia potentially has no proof that the editor was actually XXX in the latter case; but they have even less proof that a blog post purporting to be by XXX actually is.

Wikipedia is not an authoritative identity layer, it provides no proof of identity and is thus strictly weaker than any other proof you can come up with. If you don't trust any arbitrary website that Wikipedia cites, then you have no more reason to trust any arbitrary Wikipedia editor.

As for what tertiary sources are and why they prefer not to cite primary sources in the first place, Wikipedia goes over this in their own guidelines: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_resear...

JadeNBOP2y ago

> Wikipedia is not an authoritative identity layer, it provides no proof of identity and is thus strictly weaker than any other proof you can come up with. If you don't trust any arbitrary website that Wikipedia cites, then you have no more reason to trust any arbitrary Wikipedia editor.

It's the "strictly" with which I take issue. I certainly have no more reason to trust that a Wikipedia user whose username is BigImportantDude is actually a particular Big Important Dude than to trust the analogous fact about a blog post purporting to be authored by the Big Important Dude; but I dispute the fact that I should trust it less.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

kibwen2y ago

> Wikipedia potentially has no proof that the editor was actually XXX in the latter case; but they have even less proof that a blog post purporting to be by XXX actually is.

JadeNBOP2y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse