PDA

View Full Version : Why Wikipedia Isn't A Fucking Source For Those of You That Can't Figure It Out


GenocideAlive
04-07-2006, 7:06 PM
From Wikipedia's splash page explaining itself:

a multilingual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilingualism) Web (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web)-based free-content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content) encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia). It exists as a wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki), and thus is written collaboratively by volunteers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer), allowing most articles to be changed by anyone with access to a web browser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser) and an Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) connection. The project began on January 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_15), 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001), as a complement to the expert-written (and now defunct) Nupedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia), and is now operated by the non-profit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization) Wikimedia Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia). Wikipedia has more than 3,700,000 articles in many languages, including more than 1,000,000 in the English-language version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia). Since its inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#_note-0) and has spawned several sister projects. Editors are required to uphold a policy of "neutral point of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view)" under which notable perspectives are summarized without an attempt to determine an objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29) truth. Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales) has called it "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#_note-1)

However, there has been controversy over its reliability and accuracy. Common points of criticism are vandalism, inconsistency, uneven quality, unsubstantiated opinions, systemic bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias), and preference of consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus) or popularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popularity) to credentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credentials). In addition, some critics have suggested that Wikipedia cannot justifiably be called an "encyclopedia", a term which (it is claimed) implies a high degree of reliability and authority that Wikipedia, due to its open editorial policies, may not be able to maintain.

Desert_Eagle
04-07-2006, 7:21 PM
You contradict yourself by citing wikipedia as your source of that information.

Neo
04-07-2006, 9:12 PM
Yay for irrelevant threads.

Wikipedia can still be A source of information. Its not fair to discredit the whole damn thing "just because".

Besides that, you get sources on most wikipedia articles. Where do you draw the line? Wikipedia is more like a portal to real sources, while the information that wikipedia presents might be biased -- or even wrong -- you are welcome to explore the source FOR that information and decide for yourself.

-Neo