Comments for People-Authored Wikipedia! »
Posted By omerazam 1 year, 3 months ago in Science & TechnologyWikipedia is a free online encyclopedia and the name is a combination of “wiki” meaning “quick” in Hawaiian and encyclopedia. It is updated in more than 100 languages and the English version has nearly 2 million articles.
Read Full Story at dirjournal.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 19
-
dearmansoorComment removed: Spammer3 Replies
-
100%
hsaleem1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The United States government has made changes to Wikipedia. CIA and FBI computers have edited entries on hot topics such as the Iraq War and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Now purists are screeching that the government has not followed the rules of the site by making changes to things like the Iraq death toll or removing aerial photographs of Guantanamo Bay.
Reply -
-
67%
Candida1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No encyclopedia can ever be completely objective because all of them are written by people. The fact that anybody can edit Wikipedia shows that it has a self-correcting mechanism which works against bias, but it also opens it up to vandalism.
Reply
In my experience, most of the information seems to be accurate and objective. For those who are worried about bias, the solution is simple: correct it, or don't use it. There are lots of other sources available. -
100%
zunaira1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wikipedia is without question a valuable and informative resource, there is an important concern to take into account when using it.
Reply
As anyone can add or change content, there is an inherent lack of reliability and stability to Wikipedia. Authors of articles may not necessarily be experts on the topics they write about, leaving a room for errors, propaganda and bias.-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
100%
epiphannyy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As long as people using Wikipedia realize that it is largely an OpEd piece, and therefore more reliably an opinion piece rather than a factual statistic, then its a great resource. The problem is that it is not used that way. I very often see people cite Wikipedia as their source when arguing supposed facts about politics or religion or other "hot topic" debates. It is probably the least reliable source for use in such situations. It is far too biased to be factual, as even many of the facts are spun to project the viewpoint of the "editor" of each specific fact. I think the concept of trying to keep it up to date by way of allowing knowledgeable editors add or subtract information as time goes on and new discoveries are made is great. The problem is, the concept is much greater than the actual practice of it. If Wikipedia would screen the edits for accuracy, then it might work. The fact that they don't eliminates all real value because none of it can actually be trusted.
Reply -
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.