Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
wetdry.world is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
We are a community focused on gaming, tech, entertainment, and more.

Administered by:

Server stats:

726
active users

wetdry.world: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.5.0-alpha.1+chuckya

i don't think i've ever seen a wikipedia page cite itself before

Wikipedia text: McHenry was bitten by a rabid fox while running through Capitol Hill in 2022. He did not publicly mention the incident until months later, commenting that "I didn’t want my Wikipedia page to say, 'And he got bitten by a rabid fox'". The incident, however, was included in his Wikipedia page. [the last sentence cites itself]
··Web
444boosts·777favorites·64reactions

@theking i havent been able to find a guideline against this surprisingly. "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources" [en.wikipedia.org] has an exception for when the discussion is about wikipedia itself, Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid [en.wikipedia.org] seems to allow writing about wikipedia itself when the subject involves wikipedia

en.wikipedia.orgWikipedia:Verifiability - Wikipedia

@lexd0g@wetdry.world ohhh wait a minute, I just realized the context, yeah it makes sense and is allowed

@theking @lexd0g No? If it’s citing an idea that it was included in the article, it still needs to point to a news article or something noting that, since otherwise it is not verified nor notable.

@aismallard@woem.space @lexd0g@wetdry.world it's citing the contents of a Wikipedia page about a statement of content existing on Wikipedia, it should be an archive link though

@theking @aismallard they made it an archive link

@lexd0g @theking Also it’s not a correct cite either. You don’t just put bare links in there and you don’t use mobile links.

@lexd0g @theking The page is being vandalized by an IP adding stuff like his surname being “McBlowjob” though

@lexd0g
In many cases this is actually a step up

@lexd0g Wikipedia out for blood

@lexd0g that set me off looking for others and I'm very disappointed to note that the page for "recursion" does not have a See Also link to itself

@lexd0g I think this would also violate their rule about only secondary sources since technically the Wikipedia page is the primary source for itself

@Lunaphied @lexd0g this fedi post could be the secondary source

-carrie

@lexd0g take that, mr „wikipedia isn’t a primary source“ lecturer

@lexd0g The true Ourobos was the fox we met along the way.

@lexd0g does this count as both a primary and secondary source?

@casuallynoted @lexd0g they can use this thread as secondary source now

@lexd0g @aprilfollies This seems the most appropriate way for it to happen, though.

@lexd0g understanding recursion requires understanding recursion first

@lexd0g Advanced Citogenesis

@lexd0g that feels weird, but that is definitely a valid citation

@lilacperegrine @lexd0g my thoughts too! It's not supposed to work that way but it *is* a legit citation 😮️

@lexd0g I just saw this on reddit, it's amazing

@lexd0g talk about manifesting your destiny

@lexd0g oh fuck this is hilarious

@lexd0g@wetdry.world it should've cited the actual revision where it got added

TrendingLive feeds
About