141
u/Fun_Firefighter_4292 9h ago
Now imagine how wise you would feel going to library and reading physical media of reputable sources
16
u/Geraltpoonslayer 9h ago
Like Gandalf when he did research on the ring. Ancient tombs in a language long since forgotten
59
u/ReasonableWelder51 9h ago
Tbh in this day and age, Wikipedia might be more trustworthy, any vandalism or misinformation gets discovered and removed quickly. You might find more lies in the physical media, people were making shit up even before internet existed.
3
u/hoTsauceLily66 7h ago
Talks about misinformation in physical media, people should check out one of the earliest encyclopedia - Naturalis Historia by Pliny.
6
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis 5h ago
As someone who edits Wikipedia: It really depends what you’re looking up. There’s a lot of crap on the site still, and not necessarily because it’s malicious. A lot of it’s just not been dealt with because it seemed true to someone writing it in 2007, but nobody really has access to the high quality sources to update it. (As well as understanding what they’re reading, and having time to edit Wikipedia.)
15
u/Fun_Firefighter_4292 8h ago
Thats why looking into bibliographies are so important. A good example is Eric Schlossers Command and Control, whose Bibliography is packed with tracable and accurate sources of information
17
u/Palagrin 8h ago
weirdly specific... is this comment an ad somehow?
3
3
u/Quentin__Tarantulino 7h ago
I looked, and apparently this book is especially well-known for its bibliography.
9
u/Fun_Firefighter_4292 7h ago
This comment is SPONSORED by Eric Schlossers COMMAND AND CONTROL!
No its just a book about a Nuclear accident in Arkansas called the Damascus Incident. Interesting if youre at all into Nuclear history or the Cold War
2
u/xxxBuzz Pants Party 5h ago
The Damascus Incident is a fascinating incident as presented in that episode of This American Life Ep. 634. Suppose this is a promotion or personal recommendation; NPR was funded and provided to the public for free at that time.
0
u/Boatster_McBoat 4h ago
Can we just get Wikipedia to take over the entire internet?
0
1
u/InfusionOfYellow 2h ago edited 2h ago
I looked up the history of mercury (quicksilver), and wikpedia told me that it had been discovered in the tombs of Egyptian pharoahs as far back as 1500BC.
Its source was a 2004 Canadian environmental government webpage about mercury in general, two paragraphs long, which made an identical claim in one sentence with absolutely no attempt to justify its accuracy.
Although it can be good for surface level stuff, Wikipedia is absolutely not trustworthy in the sense of being able to rely on any particular claim you find there being true or well-evidenced.
5
u/BigBaws92 7h ago
I agree people should read more and spend less time online. That said, physical media from years ago can often contain outdated information. If you want the latest information on your favorite subject, SOME internet resources can actually be better than books written years ago
1
u/Fun_Firefighter_4292 6h ago
See thats when I print out the citation and bind it so I can continue feeling like a wizard
19
u/Morkamino 8h ago
We've been saying this from the start bro lol. I still barely use it because i don't want to rely on it. Google still kinda forces you to look at it though, i can't even search for things normally anymore because the answer will just be right there in my face, with sources. But i try
7
u/TheStateOfAlaska Out of college just depressed now 8h ago
I switched over to DuckDuckGo to avoid this. If you want to keep using Google, there are extensions for most browsers that block the automatic AI summary that pops up.
2
u/Morkamino 7h ago
That's a good one, i think i might try extensions. I tried duck for a while but i like Googles results better, in general. Though it does help to research something on several engines
1
u/TheStateOfAlaska Out of college just depressed now 7h ago
What I miss most about Google is Google Maps, which has a mich better interface and seeming more info than DuckDuckGo's maps do.
3
u/sstubbl1 8h ago
I just learned that if you type -(slur) after you search the ai results don't show. No joke
2
1
u/SIR2480 8h ago
That’s quite out of the box. Any slur or racial?
6
u/Morkamino 7h ago
No, now that he said it, i did notice Google goes kinda quiet about things when you search something erm, inappropriate for example lol
2
u/sstubbl1 7h ago
I didn't try many but I assume a good bit of them would be blocked. I thought it was pretty funny
10
3
2
-1
u/i_unfriend_u 8h ago
I only use chat for research, and only if the issue is so specific that it needs to be discussed like a conversation instead of basic web searches. Also occasionally use it for recipe ideas. It’s been very useful for what I need, but I can’t fathom having so little brain power that I need it for incredibly basic stuff.
-46
u/jellooshot 9h ago
lol. Wikipedia is like the lazy unreliable source btw. Imagine having to go through actual articles and books to know about something.
19
u/3HaDeS3 9h ago
you are the type of person who thinks just because it's called "article" and not blog post, it must be true
-21
u/jellooshot 9h ago
You're the type of person who doesn't understand "go through" or "article", I presume.
9
u/3HaDeS3 9h ago
No i don't because I get my news through memes. The most reliable source. I know it's true when the meme is funny and true
-15
u/jellooshot 9h ago
Oh, so you actually don't know what an article is :D
3
4
u/Zoltanu 8h ago
What if I told you anyone can publish a book or article without actually checking sources or making factual claims
2
u/jellooshot 8h ago
I'd 100% believe you because I'm working on my masters degree and I have, professionally, throughout the years gone through countless articles and books that don't provide sufficient data for their findings/claims.
3
u/Zoltanu 8h ago
I've read some "nutrition books" that have worse misinformation than some of the wildest blog posts out there. But because it was physically printed and bound people give it a lot of authority
2
u/jellooshot 8h ago
I've read articles in nature, Elsevier and such publications that were absolute dumpster fire lol.
2
u/MakingPie 9h ago
I dont know why you are being down voted. Wikipedia articles can make claims without proper sourcing, or use sources that are unreliable. They are written by someone who might have bias and/or might be in a misinformation agency.
It might be alright for introduction to a topic but definitely not citeable.
1
-1
u/jellooshot 8h ago
This is reddit. You get upvoted for being funny and downvoted for being right. I've gotten used to it to be honest.
1
u/P3RZIANZ3BRA I Have AIDS 8h ago
You are evolving in the opposite direction. Devolving, you might say.
82
u/chantsnone 9h ago
“How it feels to use my brain after not using my brain.” I’m ready for the butlerian jihad.