• Urist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In any discipline some part has to be trusted for the next to follow. It is not circular, it is axiomatic. You can do a Descartes to find a “guarantee of truth”, but there won’t be one. Hence your critique could literally be applied to anything. Check sources and be happy they are freely provided (and donate to Wikipedia).

    • morrowind
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s my point, by mistrusting every other website, OP is violating axioms upon which Wikipedia is built, yet still claiming it’s trustworthy

      • Urist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, I now see better what you meant. That is in part a fun little contradiction, but much of Wikipedia’s sources are books and articles that come in printed form. These are easier than other websites to verify as sources due to their tangible nature.

          • Urist
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not really. Just sail the high seas with Library Genesis or Sci-Hub. The nature of being published is being non-editable, a digital copy is an okay compromise.

            EDIT: There is an issue of trust in piracy, though hardly in practice, but Open Access should help with this.