Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SJackson
Of course, one can expect Britannica to have a vested, self-interest in discrediting Wikipedia..

Wikipedia is addressing it's problems in this respect, and I have every confidence on most issues I wish to look up..
It's the matter of current events and individual reputations / political views that most often come under attack..
Politics, Religion, Famous People..
All come under attack from various sources according to their point of view, be it ideological or personal..

If Wikipedia manages to get together a decent, even handed board of review for such topics, and restricts editing to fully reviewed and approved information, then these matters of contention will be resolved..

7 posted on 05/08/2006 7:12:12 PM PDT by Drammach (In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Drammach
Wikipedia is addressing it's problems in this respect, and I have every confidence on most issues I wish to look up..

I guess we differ, I have little confidence in anything I can't verify from other sources. Though as I noted, they're good on footnoting, and thus a worthwhile resource.

8 posted on 05/08/2006 7:13:49 PM PDT by SJackson (The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn’t do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Drammach

Wikipedia is garbage.


10 posted on 05/08/2006 7:20:32 PM PDT by toddlintown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson