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

To: luvbach1

Many people will try to argue it is a very good source, but I agree with you that it will never be good because of its open-to-edit nature. Anyone can edit it and so how do we know something must be authoritatively true - it does not necessarily follow that just because a majority of people believe X is true means X is really true.

In addition, there is no consistency between one article in one language to another unless if that one is a translated version of that article from anotehr language. In the article on World War II, for example, you will see the English version talk a lot about Nazis and Hitler, while the Chinese version will emphasise Japan, and the Japanese version blasts the US for Lend-Lease and setting up the Flying Tigers to aid China before Pearl Harbour and effectively breaching the US neutrality stance of that time.

The article on the Japanese national anthem in Chinese blasts it as extremely militaristic while you won't see anything like such comments in the English version as the English-speaking nations don't regard it as such.


5 posted on 05/12/2006 2:54:58 PM PDT by NZerFromHK (Leftism is like honey mixed with arsenic: initially it tastes good, but that will end up killing you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: NZerFromHK

Wikipedia is mostly good for hard sciences, technology, and pop culture.


8 posted on 05/12/2006 3:33:07 PM PDT by Ptarmigan (Ptarmigans will rise again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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