Wikipedia has beaten all odds for longevity of trust—I remember pretty heated arguments circa 2005 whether it was referenceable on any topic, though it was known to be very good on technical topics or niches without controversy where nerds could agree on what was true (but not always what was important). By 2010, it was pretty widely respected, though the recommendation from Very Serious People was to cite the underlying sources, not the articles themselves. I think it was considered pretty authoritative in discussions I was having by 2013 or so, and nowadays it’s surprising and newsworthy when something is wrong for very long (though edit wars and locking down sections happens fairly often).
I still take it with a little skepticism for very recently-edited or created topics—it’s an awesome resource to know the shape of knowledge in the area, but until things have been there for weeks or months, it’s hard to be sure it’s a consensus.
Wikipedia is considered trustworthy → people with strong agenda get to positions where they can abuse Wikipedia → Wikipedia is considered untrustworthy → people with strong agenda find better use of their time and stop abusing Wikipedia, people who care about correct information fix it → Wikipedia is considered trustworthy...
The agenda is mainly to follow the institutions like the New York Times. In a time where the New York Times isn’t worth much more then saw dust, that’s not a strategy to get to truth.
Wikipedia has beaten all odds for longevity of trust—I remember pretty heated arguments circa 2005 whether it was referenceable on any topic, though it was known to be very good on technical topics or niches without controversy where nerds could agree on what was true (but not always what was important). By 2010, it was pretty widely respected, though the recommendation from Very Serious People was to cite the underlying sources, not the articles themselves. I think it was considered pretty authoritative in discussions I was having by 2013 or so, and nowadays it’s surprising and newsworthy when something is wrong for very long (though edit wars and locking down sections happens fairly often).
I still take it with a little skepticism for very recently-edited or created topics—it’s an awesome resource to know the shape of knowledge in the area, but until things have been there for weeks or months, it’s hard to be sure it’s a consensus.
Could it be a natural cycle?
Wikipedia is considered trustworthy → people with strong agenda get to positions where they can abuse Wikipedia → Wikipedia is considered untrustworthy → people with strong agenda find better use of their time and stop abusing Wikipedia, people who care about correct information fix it → Wikipedia is considered trustworthy...
The agenda is mainly to follow the institutions like the New York Times. In a time where the New York Times isn’t worth much more then saw dust, that’s not a strategy to get to truth.