Jeff Soules writes: > In short, Wikipedia is sometimes questionable, but so are things you read > on mailing lists and forums, and even articles published by professional > journalists.
_Especially_ articles published by professional journalists. No source is totally reliable, but in my experience Wikipedia is better than most[1]. This offends many professional journalists, with the results you see. On matters related to Linux, Debian, and Free Software Wikipedia appears to be quite reliable. If you are researching for publication you should check primary sources, of course. Most Wikipedia articles are good sources of pointers to those. Ted writes: > Also, there was recently an internal conflict between several individuals > working at wikipedia... You think there are never any internal conflicts at the New York Times? Such as, for example, a journalist being fired after it was discovered that he was making up "news" out of whole cloth? Of course, it is unusual for such things to become public when they concern commercial media: could hurt sales. With organizations like Wikipedia, on the other hand, everthing is public. > ...and the conflict was over the growing content some of which was > mis-information... People often post misinformation to Wikipedia. Someone else corrects it, usually within a few minutes. There are millions of articles: the odds that you will hit one that has been sabotaged before it is fixed are small. The odds that you will not recognize it for what it is are smaller yet as the sabotage is usually crude. > ...and in one case submitted by someone using false credentials. Wikipedia requires no credentials. That is what so offends the professionals. > I collect hundreds of news reports every day and all of them are credible > and responsibly written. I have been reading news reports for more than fifty years. Their average quality falls far below the average quality of Wikipedia articles I have read and has not been inproving over the decades. Useful information can be gleaned from the "media" but you _must_ be skeptical and use multiple sources. Journalists are biased (not all in the same way, fortunately), careless, and rushed. They are particularly bad about technical and scientific matters. > I obtained my information via these news reports. So, what's going on > here? As is often the case, you are obtaining your "information" from people with an agenda. [1] On subjects that interest me such as math, science, and history. It may be useless for trivia such as celebrity biographies for all I know. Or care. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
