Posted on 05/28/2007 7:34:48 PM PDT by Philo1962
The sponsors of Wikipedia should responsibly warn the public that its content is subject to corruption and inaccuracy. As any source of information is nowadays.
Ping. If you want off my ping list, just freepmail me.
Jump to: navigation, search
Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. If you are prevented from editing this article, and you wish to make a change, please discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
If Wikipedia did not exist, much of the same incorrect data would still be on the net but without the corrective methods available at Wikipedia.
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Exquisitely drafted left-wing propaganda is still left-wing propaganda. They have no business passing themselves off as a "neutral point of view" encyclopedia.
Ping. You look like you might be interested in this.
Corrective methods????? Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!~!!!!!~
We have a local blogger who likes to talk about “fixing” the wiki entries of people he’s attacking.
How much are you involved in Wikipedia? There are all kinds of corrective mechanisms.
The bottom line is that anyone can edit many of the articles but that unsourced material is easily corrected. Sourced material (like a article that correctly quotes the NY Times when the NY Times got it wrong) is easily correctable to provide other sources.
Now if all the major media sources report something incorrect that is hard to correct but is also beyond the scope of what Wikipedia can reasonably be expected to accomplish.
That said, Wikipedia is most useful for the sources rather than for the user generated content.
It's not true about newspapers, it's not true about Al Gore's internet.
I edit Wikipedia
I memorized Holy Grail really well
I can recite it right now and have you R-O-T-F-L-O-L
Nature (magazine) recently conducted a sudy and found wiki was only slightly less accurate than Brittanica. Many articles were more accurate. It has almost 1.5 million articles to Britannicas 80,000. A lot especially current culture Britannica doesn't even cover. It can also be edited in real time.
Bryan, I’m not interested in your feud with Wikipedia, please remove me from your pinglist.
It’s not like Wikipedia has a strong gateway editorial board that can ensure a neutral point of view.
Wait, the NYT has that, and they’re probably further left than Wikipedia.
Anybody dumb enough to believe anything on Wikipedia deserves what they get.
It is nobody's job to waste their time refuting lies and biased opinions, just as fast as the liars can write them. For one thing, liars typically have a lot more time on their hands.
Once a subject has turned political, one should not feel compelled to participate in Wikipedia or its corrective mechanisms. News and history become truth-by-popular-opinion, and by focused efforts at fraud.
Still, it is possibly a better resource for information than anything written by newspapers and today's college professors.
The Discussion page for each article is always worth checking out. Look on the top of the page for the tab. You can also look at the edits and who made them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.