Philosiphers have been trying to work on how to define what is "True" since forever without much to show for it.

Wikipedia tries to kick the bucket by going with what "reliable" secondary sources say. Thus the goal is not to say the capital T Truth, but to essentially sumnarize academic knowledge.

To steal a saying - its the worst method except for every other known method.

If anyone has a better idea how to determine what is true and what isn't - i'd certainly be very interested.

▲

clickety_clack a day ago | parent | next [-]

I think the Gell Mann effect applies on Wikipedia just as much as in the papers. I’ve often come across articles in an area where I’m an expert and they have issues. I used to try and have them changed, but many years ago I just got exhausted by fanatics who seem to have just gotten really attached to their (incorrect) prose.

▲

okanat a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sorry but scientific method has been the default for "Truth" for many academic subjects. It is reliable and idempotent. If all of the human information and most of the knowledge workers are removed from the Earth tomorrow, many will arrive in the same conclusion in most of the natural sciences and maths. The language and representation will be different but prime numbers will still be prime numbers and the matter will still be made of one neutral and two "interactive" elements.

Social sciences like politics, history and economy are harder to replicate with the scientific method, however repeated observations, statiscial information as well as qualitative analysis with evidence-based research can still provide replicable analysis.

> If anyone has a better idea how to determine what is true and what isn't - i'd certainly be very interested

This kind of excuse is often cited to shut down any discussion, especially in history, politics and economics. I find it deeply anti-intellectual and dogmatic. As long as evidence and counter-evidence is followed, it should be possible to discuss alternative interpretations and solutions.

	▲	cvanelteren a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		While I agree with your sentiment, I must add to this that to say that something is unequivocally true that holds in all conditions everywhere is difficult to ascertain in general. So we have to deal with that two (or more) things can be true at the same time (sometimes). This may be less the case for things such as prime numbers but more the case when the underlying principle is void of simple cause and effect (in the linear sense).
	▲	jltsiren a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The scientific method can be used to falsify hypotheses. It cannot prove that something is true. Fields that use the scientific method typically rely on social consensus for determining the truth. Empirically speaking, the social consensus seems to converge to a reasonable approximation of the truth with a high probability, but the process can take decades.
	▲	bawolff a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> This kind of excuse is often cited to shut down any discussion, especially in history, politics and economics. I find it deeply anti-intellectual and dogmatic. As long as evidence and counter-evidence is followed, it should be possible to discuss alternative interpretations and solutions. How do you propose to discuss "alternative interpretations and solutions" if you believe that doing so is "anti-intellectual and dogmatic". I'm honestly confused how you could respond this way to my comment. It sounds like you are criticizing yourself (?)
	▲	a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

nradov a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I understand that "truth" and "facts" are squishy philosophical concepts at the edges, but I'm talking about something much more basic. There are Wikipedia pages which are flat out wrong (by any common definition of the term) and yet the editors won't allow any corrections because the primary sources are also wrong.

One thing that might help a bit would be to tag or color code specific statements with a confidence factor. So a statement sourced only from a single trash site like the NY Times or Fox News would be red, whereas another statement sourced from multiple independent scholarly journals would be green. Or something like that.

	▲	a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	bawolff a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> There are Wikipedia pages which are flat out wrong (by any common definition of the term) and yet the editors won't allow any corrections because the primary sources are also wrong. Primary sources aren't really considered reliable on wikipedia (with some exceptions), so if such a situation is happening (and you have a source for whatever version you think is correct, since just trust me bro doesn't go far on wikipedia) and you can't resolve it on the talk page, probably time to escalate the situation.
	▲	creata a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> There are Wikipedia pages which are flat out wrong (by any common definition of the term) and yet the editors won't allow any corrections because the primary sources are also wrong. Not saying that doesn't happen, but do you have an example of such a page?

▲

solyin a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Jev.