• 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.