Wikipedia- should I be horrified or thrilled?
 

<font color="blue">Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers.

Don't be afraid to edit pages on Wikipedia—anyone can edit, and we encourage users to be bold</font>

The first thing that pops up in my mind is an "encyclopedia" that has articles on the faked Holocaust and moon landings, along with the worst OOT "debates" and logic.

I guess I'll have to delve into this site more deeply. For those of you more experienced with it, what say ye?

Re: Wikipedia- should I be horrified or thrilled?
 

It can be useful as a first "look" into something, but I would never rely on info from wiki alone as being credible.

Re: Wikipedia- should I be horrified or thrilled?
 

If you put un-verifiable info. on there it will get deleted. They've got hall monitors just like us.

It's funny though. Sometimes when I get bored I'll go on there and create a page for my friend or something. It will be deleted within a couple hours.

Re: Wikipedia- should I be horrified or thrilled?
 

It's pretty good for the most part, because anything thats complete crap like that usually gets pulled.

Re: Wikipedia- should I be horrified or thrilled?
 

The outrageous stuff like holocaust denial will not survive there because while anyone can edit, anyone can reverse your edit - and they will do it very quickly. The law of large numbers plays in the controversial articles. Too many people watch them and will not allow stuff into the article. In terms of bias, liberals tend to be attracted to the place, so the group mentality of a liberal bias takes over on political articles.

So a general bias permeates the place because of the people who are active there, but isolated falsehoods tend not to survive.

Re: Wikipedia- should I be horrified or thrilled?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The outrageous stuff like holocaust denial will not survive there because while anyone can edit, anyone can reverse your edit - and they will do it very quickly. The law of large numbers plays in the controversial articles. Too many people watch them and will not allow stuff into the article. In terms of bias, liberals tend to be attracted to the place, so the group mentality of a liberal bias takes over on political articles.

So a general bias permeates the place because of the people who are active there, but isolated falsehoods tend not to survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no liberal bias on Wikipedia. Educated people simply have a better understanding of history and a stronger worldview.

Re: Wikipedia- should I be horrified or thrilled?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no liberal bias on Wikipedia. Educated people simply have a better understanding of history and a stronger worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll admit that my sample size is small, but apparently "educated people" are also more likely to be pompous assholes.

Does this count as feeding the troll if I'm liberal too?

To the topic at hand: Wikipedia is not nearly as bad as it sounds. If you find something that sounds blatantly wrong, it probably is. But usually the collaborative review process weeds out the truly crazy stuff.

Re: Wikipedia- should I be horrified or thrilled?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The outrageous stuff like holocaust denial will not survive there because while anyone can edit, anyone can reverse your edit - and they will do it very quickly. The law of large numbers plays in the controversial articles. Too many people watch them and will not allow stuff into the article. In terms of bias, liberals tend to be attracted to the place, so the group mentality of a liberal bias takes over on political articles.

So a general bias permeates the place because of the people who are active there, but isolated falsehoods tend not to survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no liberal bias on Wikipedia. Educated people simply have a better understanding of history and a stronger worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]

ding ding ding

Re: Wikipedia- should I be horrified or thrilled?
 

[ QUOTE ]

There is no liberal bias on Wikipedia. Educated people simply have a better understanding of history and a stronger worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I mention that Wikipedia is elitist too?

Oh, but then you are one of them "educanated people" that knows more than the little folk, so you already knew that.

Re: Wikipedia- should I be horrified or thrilled?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There is no liberal bias on Wikipedia. Educated people simply have a better understanding of history and a stronger worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I mention that Wikipedia is elitist too?

Oh, but then you are one of them "educanated people" that knows more than the little folk, so you already knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you hate knowledge? are you suspicious of people who use polysyllabic words? Your ancestors probably wanted to kill Copernicus for discovering the true nature of the solar system.