this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1074 points (90.7% liked)

Showerthoughts

29698 readers
1222 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
quinten@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
1074
They use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by Daft_ish@lemmy.world to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
334 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But it takes more effort to confirm a tangible source than one on the internet?

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Oh, you're taking me literally. Sorry I didn't catch that.