Hacker News Reader

This is why wikipedia is a failure:

"....Another editor cheerfully tutored me in what this means: "Wikipedia is not 'truth,' Wikipedia is 'verifiability' of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that." http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/13...

View on HN

It makes sense to me. Going with the majority opinion is the only way to have stable content. Trying to resolve controversy on Wikipedia is what would actually destroy it. Democracy can cause horrible injustice, but we've learned from history that it's the only irrefutable way to decide things, unless the evidence is even simpler than counting ballots.

It doesn't mean Wikipedia is a failure, it just means Wikipedia is not the oracle of truth that some people expect it to be. It's a repository of majority views, which is usually pretty valuable, even if it's sometimes wrong. We have other venues for challenging popular fallacies.

Going with the majority opinion, even when wrong, is an excellent way to maintain errors in thinking and in fact.

Wikipedia is an ok MMORPG but a failure as a reliable repository of useful knowledge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com