1

My question which emphasizes scientific consensus What is the latest scientific consensus on the peopling of the Americas? was answered with Wikipedia links. I submitted an edit to remove some of them and intended to replace the rest but it was not accepted fully.

3
  • 2
    This question has been explored several times; We've already started to mark similar questions as duplicate. Could you explain why this question is different, and why we shouldn't accept Wikipedia?
    – MCW Mod
    Commented May 24 at 10:53
  • Having said the above, I suspect that we should add the "approved site policy" tag to one of the WIkipedia questions. Community: Please vote for the question in Meta:Wikipedia that you think most clearly articulates site policy.
    – MCW Mod
    Commented May 24 at 10:55
  • 2
    @MCW - I haven't checked them all yet, but this one from 2011 seems like a good candidate. The question was well-articulated, not horribly leading, and both it and the top answer have a lot of votes. Only real issue is that it's 13 years old at this point (if you consider that an issue, rather than a great indicator of this being longstanding site policy). Well, that and that it wasn't accepted.
    – T.E.D. Mod
    Commented May 24 at 14:35

1 Answer 1

1

Wikipedia is utterly untrustworthy and shouldn't be accepted especially in history. Consider how long the Scottish Wikipedia got away with it or how the Croatian and Polish far right biases were caught, the Indian and Hungarian not yet. Cite everything is just a fig leaf, you can use a source which writes falsehoods or just cite an obscure enough book which can be bothered to verify whether your claim is true. The "There is no credential" policy ensures real scientists will stay far away from this quagmire.

3
  • As already covered in the discussion, a bad source is better than no source at all.
    – MCW Mod
    Commented May 27 at 19:42
  • well, I like to think of myself as a "real scientist" and I use it all the time. Maxwell's equations check out, as do fundamental constants, various mechanisms that produce superconductivity, molecular structures, length of a solar day on Mars, etc. Perhaps this is a little extreme?
    – uhoh
    Commented Jun 10 at 6:00
  • yeah, maybe, some fundamental facts are not falsified by the fascists yet. but history?
    – chx
    Commented Jun 10 at 14:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .