I used and supported Wikipedia at first. It was ay least as good as any other encyclopaedia. It became an institution - and like any other institution activists started to march through it with their own agendas foremost. Because Wikipedia is primarily about information and knowledge it is particularly vulnerable to diversion from its original purpose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose
"The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional, or opinionated writing."
I use it with care nowadays. Factual stuff usually has any raw facts correct but the bias in some articles, especially contentious issues like climate or gender, is very dangerous propaganda
DJ - I use it for neutral factual material, but nothing else and even then I tend to look for confirmation from other sources. Sources seem to be a Wikipedia weakness in that it seems to rely too much on secondary sources such as mainstream media. It seems to be only partially aware that "existing mainstream knowledge" isn't necessarily knowledge at all.
Woodsy - I use it with care too, it strays beyond reasonable expectations of what an encyclopaedia should be.
3 comments:
I used and supported Wikipedia at first. It was ay least as good as any other encyclopaedia. It became an institution - and like any other institution activists started to march through it with their own agendas foremost. Because Wikipedia is primarily about information and knowledge it is particularly vulnerable to diversion from its original purpose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose
"The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional, or opinionated writing."
I use it with care nowadays. Factual stuff usually has any raw facts correct but the bias in some articles, especially contentious issues like climate or gender, is very dangerous propaganda
DJ - I use it for neutral factual material, but nothing else and even then I tend to look for confirmation from other sources. Sources seem to be a Wikipedia weakness in that it seems to rely too much on secondary sources such as mainstream media. It seems to be only partially aware that "existing mainstream knowledge" isn't necessarily knowledge at all.
Woodsy - I use it with care too, it strays beyond reasonable expectations of what an encyclopaedia should be.
Post a Comment