Into the 2010s and beyond, Wikipedia began to be widely regarded as a trustworthy resource. It has long been integrated into Google , for example, as a primary data source of the ‘knowledge graph.’ That’s earned its place, and it is worth repeating, as the world’s top non‑commercial, non‑social, non‑search web destination. It isn’t just English, either, as Wikipedia is now available in 342 languages.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News , or add us as a preferred source , to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
Mark Tyson is a news editor at Tom's Hardware. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason. ","collapsible":{"enabled":true,"maxHeight":250,"readMoreText":"Read more","readLessText":"Read less"}}), "https://slice.vanilla.futurecdn.net/13-4-11/js/authorBio.js"); } else { console.error('%c FTE ','background: #9306F9; color: #ffffff','no lazy slice hydration function available'); } Mark Tyson Social Links Navigation News Editor Mark Tyson is a news editor at Tom's Hardware. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.
ekio And if you are tired of the gigantic bias from Wikipedia articles that omit negative things on purpose and even actively deleted contributions to point facts in the articles, when it doesn’t fit their narrative, and on the other side, insist on minor events to make people sound evil when they have different takes about society, there is grokipedia ! Reply
Shiznizzle "Critics would initially highlight that ‘anyone could edit it’ as a major failing, regarding the reliability of Wikipedia encyclopedia entries." Indeed. As a former editor, publisher of whole new pages on living people, maintainer and contributor, i can also tell you that what you write is not guaranteed to stay there either, as it is not the publisher, the actual writer of the text posted, that decides if it stays online or not. The "truth" is decided by the behind the scenes administrators. Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. They will suppress the truth even when supported by facts so their little peon admins do not lose face. I stopped editing there. I stopped donating money. I do nothing for them anymore. Public figures of all shades are able to suppress, through proxies, uncomfortable facts that they wish to conceal from the public at large. Subjects of articles are not "allowed" to edit their own pages yet they do it anyway using others. Have an affair you do not wish to draw attention to even though this info is in public hands? That was one area i liked to "correct" on wikipedia. When i was seriously warned for editing a page to include a public affair of an individual i made the choice to leave the platform. Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. Wikipedia is run by a few thousand people who decide issues and they are the ones who say what the truth is. Want to see what goes on in the background behind the scene? Click that little "Talk" button that is at the top of the page. That is where the real battles to have "content" approved take place. That is where you will see authoritarian behavior that makes a mockery of the truth. Reply
hotaru251 Shiznizzle said: Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. They will suppress the truth even when supported by facts so their little peon admins do not lose face. duh? Thats basically everything that gets large enough as someone has to own it and control it thus a bias is going to exist. this is also why you can't cite wikipedia as a source. (though you can use it to find sources which is its biggest benefit) Reply
ekio hotaru251 said: duh? Thats basically everything that gets large enough as someone has to own it and control it thus a bias is going to exist. this is also why you can't cite wikipedia as a source. (though you can use it to find sources which is its biggest benefit) Ok, what’s your cynical point? The issues is that wikipedia is SO biased that they literally lie by omission in almost every article, and they are throwing people under the bus when their despots don’t like them. Even one of the founder of wikipedia said it became crap. Reply
ezst036 Bias at Wikipedia seems a bit overplayed. You have people who pick up one source and run with it instead of grabbing as many sources as they can and building for themselves a consensus form of edit with at least 3 sources but better like 5 or 6 sources. Don't get me wrong, I've seen Wikipedia bias. Many times it stems from Wikipedia's bizarrely worded editing rules which are easily weaponized by someone familiar with 10 rules against one person who barely knows 1 of Wikipedia's editing rules. Another track of bias, and this one is my favorite, is when you see an article that gets picked apart by seemingly disconnected vulture editors. One comes in and invalidates source number 1, another editor comes in and invalidates source number 2, and the next thing you know after pick pick pick pick the final vulture comes in feigning cluelessness and requests for the page to be deleted since its entirely unsourced. It's a brilliant scheme to force topics into the memory hole of forgetfulness. There were sources in the history? What? I don't see any sources. In fact I don't see any history. Just delete the page. Its easy to achieve a manipulated consensus for deletion of an unsourced wiki article when you remove the sources one-by-one with disparate accounts. So the bias does exist. But it is pumped up with hype. One person loses their favorite one-time edit and they're scorned forever. Nah bro. You just didn't do it right. That's not Wikipedia's bias. That's your laziness . Reply
Findecanor I remember one innocuous article that was created, then deleted for some bullshit excuse and for absolutely no reason blocked from being recreated again with better sources. It took a decade before it eventually came back. Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/wikipedia-is-now-25-years-old-worlds-7th-most-popular-website-now-has-over-7-million-english-articles-and-7-billion-monthly-visitors#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com
- Eric Demers leaves for Intel after 14 years at Qualcomm — father of Radeon and Adreno GPUs now sits at Lip-Bu Tan's table
- Acer Predator OLED 26.5-inch gaming monitor plummets to $429, hitting record-low price — $120 saving nets you 1440p QD-OLED panel, boasting a snappy 240Hz refre
- Gamer builds ‘hardcore’ first-person shooter simulator that actually shoots back — gaming PC also has real weather effects
- be quiet! Pure Power 13 M 650W power supply review: Balanced performance and reliability
- Glass cloth could be the next great AI shortage, as major manufacturers scramble to secure critical material — Japanese manufacturer courted by Apple, Nvidia, G
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.