Is that going to be the foundation of a comment on the MIT Wiki article?

I can’t wait.

Consistent opinions are correct opinions? Like Nazism?

Er, wikipedia? Isn’t that…the whole of human society? With exceptions, obviously, but peer pressure and mob mentality create that same effect everywhere. I don’t see that Wikipedia is a special example.

Science - and all empirical knowledge - is neither democratic nor opinion-based.

in many different points of view

Reminds me of a line from The Simpsons: “I know how we can tell what’s the truth. We’ll take a vote!”

It’s so easy to confuse opinions and truths, especially with a headline that proposes something new… And yes, it’s obvious: consistent opinions are preferable over inconsistent ones; I giuess it’s fine to then call them correct. (But who would want to have a ‘correct opinion’ anyway?)

As I’ve been told so many times I’ve quit counting, Wikipedia is not correct, it is Verifiable from Reliable Sources. That a usually Reliable Source could be incorrect is a notion that hasn’t seriously entered their rules.

“That a usually Reliable Source could be incorrect is a notion that hasn’t seriously entered their rules.”

LOL, yeah, wikipedians don’t know the first thing about changing and contradictory sources, they’re totally stuck in a static world where everything must be “wrong” or “right” amirite? Wait, no, that is actually everyone working in pre-wiki media. I think if you look you’ll find Wikipedia has many excellent articles that cite sources which contradict eachother.

I’m checking this entry a couple of times a week with full anticipation for your opinion on this subject!

Thanks for the reminder!