The servers, editors, and bots track and tag vandalism and other forms of abuse with public records. Every edit is reviewable by anyone with Internet access, every edit is attributed and licensed under CC-BY-SA.

Almost anyone in good standing can obtain those rights, and it's 100% transparent. Anyone can submit an edit to the article, but the revisions and new data is held back from the 'front page' publication until approved by someone with the proper user rights. Wikipedia has a similar model for protecting articles known as 'Pending Changes'. Their rates for abuse and misinformation are unpublished. They own and control everything on the site. IMDb won't cite their sources nor attribute contributors. IMDb's TOS ensures that you relinquish all copyright claims and grant them an exclusive license to your content. IMDb clearly stakes their reputation on accuracy and comprehensive coverage. IMDb is crowdsourced and accepts user data submissions.Įxternal users are not part of it. In a same way I wouldn't say that whole javascript is bad because there are some bad frameworks that are based on it.īut I don't know, I am not an expert, I'm just a random wikipedia user :shrug_emoji: I believe that it's unfair to judge the main wikipedia project by using it's smaller 'translation' branches - the main one has hundreds of thousands of contributtors, and smaller wikipedias have way less. Then marak830 claimed that such claim is wrong and IncRnd claimed that the original claim is true because 'Simple' Wikipedia has an article with such text.īut I just have to disagree here - I believe that the 'main' Wikipedia is mostly or more accurate than any other Wikipedia - be it 'simple' or 'lithuanian' ( ).

That's how reliable Wikipedia is' - which I understood as a claim that 'Wikipedia is unreliable'.

The throwawayaug8 did say 'According to Wikipedia Elon Musk is the founder of Tesla. Okay, fair point about the second part - my mistake indeed.īut I have to push back about the first part.

Slumdog millionaire imdb trivia