Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 2590749" data-attributes="member: 151">I like wikipedia, but I wouldn't trust it for much other than the most rudimentary and broad discussions of topics.&nbsp; The former chief editor of Encylopedia Britannica issued an opinion about wikipedia that I pretty much agree with.&nbsp; It's good for some general source information with an emphasis on geek topics, but don't trust it for specifics and understand that it's potentially RIFE with factual errors.&nbsp; It's a nice pie-in-the-sky project that has a lot of merit, but it's not a replacement for an encyclopedia.His dissection of the Alexander Hamilton page, for example, with multiple self-conflicting entries (at that time) blatantly incorrect information (mentioning states that weren't states at that time, listing incorrect years for his vice-presidency) and so forth.&nbsp; And then his subsequent examination of just one set of edits (someone added a fact, someone removed a fact, another person reinstated the fact and still another person RE-removed the fact, banned someone else and then changed the fact to something else entirely).&nbsp; Personally, I think wikipedia is a nice pet project and a great kick-off point for information gathering...but not much more than that.&nbsp; The problem with creating an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to or edit is that anyone can contribute to or edit it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />(Edit: Fixed what my faulty memory recalled)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 2590749, member: 151"] I like wikipedia, but I wouldn't trust it for much other than the most rudimentary and broad discussions of topics. The former chief editor of Encylopedia Britannica issued an opinion about wikipedia that I pretty much agree with. It's good for some general source information with an emphasis on geek topics, but don't trust it for specifics and understand that it's potentially RIFE with factual errors. It's a nice pie-in-the-sky project that has a lot of merit, but it's not a replacement for an encyclopedia. His dissection of the Alexander Hamilton page, for example, with multiple self-conflicting entries (at that time) blatantly incorrect information (mentioning states that weren't states at that time, listing incorrect years for his vice-presidency) and so forth. And then his subsequent examination of just one set of edits (someone added a fact, someone removed a fact, another person reinstated the fact and still another person RE-removed the fact, banned someone else and then changed the fact to something else entirely). Personally, I think wikipedia is a nice pet project and a great kick-off point for information gathering...but not much more than that. The problem with creating an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to or edit is that anyone can contribute to or edit it. :) [I] (Edit: Fixed what my faulty memory recalled)[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification