Why is wikipedia often wrong about occult subjects? What wrong things have you seen there?

[otherworldlymage]

I wonder why this is. They often objectively get historical facts wrong when it comes to occult subjects. Is it religious people editing or just a lack of interest to make wikipedia pages? What explanation do you have?

And what wrong things have you seen on wikipedia in the occult?

 

[Yazata]

What examples can you give?

 

[HoldAll]

By and large I find it a good resource for fact-checking information on the occult. I hate it when people make claims that aren't historically correct or outright hokey; I also use it a lot to learn more about names and concepts author just mention in passing without explaining them, and I've always found the info to be correct. Sometimes I wish some Wiki entries gave more detail, in other cases they're too long and intricate but you get that in printed encyclopaedias too.

 

[Yazata]

Sometimes I wish some Wiki entries gave more detail,

What I really like is that the footnotes always directly link to those old encyclopedias etc on archive.org I found some very interesting books that way

 

[Sabbatius]

I wonder why this is. They often objectively get historical facts wrong when it comes to occult subjects. Is it religious people editing or just a lack of interest to make wikipedia pages? What explanation do you have?

And what wrong things have you seen on wikipedia in the occult?

I usually do not find the articles to be wrong per say but limited on the whole of the subject. I never expect to learn the entirety of a specific subject from Wikipedia. I do expect to be a bit more inclined to look for more of a broader range on a topic, as Yazata has already stated.

 

[8Lou1]

in the occult vampire sector, like the wiki site from belanger, o9a, aset ka, temple of seth and many others, fake truth is set up. i wondered why too. most seem to attack church for that shit, but no. most of the time it is unwise followers who do that. thinking its cool to kill cause a soulgroep is different or liking to say how powerful they are by creating turmoil.

 

[neilwilkes]

I wonder why this is. They often objectively get historical facts wrong when it comes to occult subjects. Is it religious people editing or just a lack of interest to make wikipedia pages? What explanation do you have?

And what wrong things have you seen on wikipedia in the occult?

It's probably because Wikipedia is able to be edited by literally everyone, and a lot of what people think they know is all too often wrong - especially with this particular subject, where more tosh has been spouted than just about any other subject I can think of, with the possible exceptions of Archaeology (dating pre-800BC in particular) and Cosmology/Theoretical Physics (the last 100 years should be wiped out and forgotten, and we should begin again with a sensible theory of what Stars & Gravity really are are and take things from there)

 

[Xingtian]

It entirely depends on who is writing the article. If you have the time and energy, you can make it better. Wikipedia is meant to give an overview of a subject for those unfamiliar and give pointers and sources for further research- that's really all an encyclopedia is supposed to do. There are some subjects that are inevitably distorted by a simplified overview, despite the summarizer's best intentions, so of course no one should take these articles as a source.

 

[Asteriskos]

I use it for a lot of quick reference look-ups mostly. Even if an article is somewhat short there's often some decent follow up links. Like some other opinions here I don't find so much wrong info as too little or limited. My main question is "What happens when the information touches too closely on something Sensitive"? Who will intervene to edit/censer or flat out delete something?

 

[Anziel_Merkaba]

I've found it to usually be pretty accurate when it comes to esoteric and occult content. Of course it's usually horribly biased or plain wrong when it comes to political subjects or things pertaining to WWII or the American Civil war, but on most subjects Wikipedia isn't a bad resource to use as a starting point to get a general understanding of something before diving deeper into the weeds about it.

The main trick is to understand that it's a community written encyclopedia and while the writers are supposed to cite their sources, sometimes those sources aren't always reliable, or the writers will actively avoid using a specific source if it contradicts what they want the article to say.