• Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    All human advancement was created by nerds. Spears were invented by weaklings too slow to kill with their bare hands. Fire was tamed by the people who were scared of the dark

    • neptune@dmv.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think the post makes a point important in modern capitalism: people will create “value” for free because they can, they care, they want to, it’s a challenge. Capital and/or the threat of starvation is not actually always necessary for people to be “productive”. Ego, boredom, altruism, adventure, these are also traits of humanity besides survival and greed.

  • user134450@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    What makes them think that the library of Alexandria did it any other way? Nerds have existed long before the internet…

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        umm ackshually this is false, the concept of nerd originates from a viking ship that docked at Lübeck in 873, whereupon the crew got into an extended argument about the precise value of their cargo, leading to the Lübeck merchants exclaiming “Fücking Nörds!” and that quickly caught on and eventually the term started generally referring to anyone that was annoyingly pedantic but technically correct.

  • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Just ignore the 150M a year they spend managing finances, contributors, tech, moderation, etc. Takes a lot to maintain an accurate library.

  • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Wikipedia is not a library neither is it a reliable source of accurate information.

    • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s definitely not 100% foolproof to misinformation, but I’ve always found wikipedia to be reliable. Why do you feel it isnt?

      • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Wikipedia’s reliability in it’s own words - check out the holocaust misinformation from last year!

        US congressional staff editing controversies as documented by and presented in wikipedia

        A ten year long hoax running until two years ago

        Wikipedia’s own list of its controversies - pay special attention here to the 2023 exposure of an administrator pretending to be a spanish folk singer as a sockpuppet of another administrator who was banned in 2015 for making “promotional edits”.

        I want to be clear: i do not feel that wikipedia isn’t reliable. I can clearly observe that wikipedia is unreliable.

        • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Info on Wikipedia shouldn’t be taken at face value, check the sources given! A lot of the examples you gave likely didn’t have any citation. The blame for misinformation partly lies with the people accepting information with no sources given. Also, any example of known misinformation just means that it has been caught and corrected. Everyone should know wikipedia is not right 100% of the time but it is always getting better. There millions of articles and I don’t think the examples you listed should lead anyone to believe it is overall unreliable. It is good however to not blindly put your trust in whatever you read from it, and if you do come across something that isn’t correct, you have the opportunity to fix it.

          • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            That’s wild.

            If you knew a person who shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe them? Would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?

            • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Wikipedia isn’t a person though. It’s a website of articles that summarizes topics and ideally lists sources that contain the info within it. I agree a person that sounds like that is untrustworthy, but that doesn’t mean anything on the topic of wikipedia.

              • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Woah.

                So, like, if you knew of a website which shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe it? would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?

                • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  It depends on the website. A Twitter post with no source? Untrustworthy. Wikipedia page with plenty of sources to back up the article? I would default to saying trustworthy, but of course I would still have to check the sources myself. Wikipedia is a tool. It connects you to outside sources of info. It has the reputation of being reliable enough to get trustworthy info in its summaries. As I’ve already stated before, mistakes have been made though.

    • Scrof@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s as accurate as any university textbook and way more accurate than any school textbook.