« "Was the Renaissance something that you put on and took off like a diadem," | Main | We all live in a Spanish submarine, a Spanish submarine, Spanish submarine.... »
May 25, 2013
Wikipedia’s about over.
To say, “some of this book’s footnotes are just links to Wikipedia articles” is universally understood to be withering.
We don’t edit Wikipedia anymore. We don’t consult it for things that matter. It’s merely a good resource for finding odd facts no one cares much about. What was the name of Alexis Denisof’s character on Buffy? Was Pride and Prejudice 1812 or 1813? Is Jimmy Wales still paying attention? -- Mark Bernstein: Wikipedia’s Emergency
Posted by gerardvanderleun at May 25, 2013 1:16 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.
Your Say
Yeah pretty much. Wikipedia suffers from a few critical flaws, such as activist editors in charge, deliberate fraud perpetrated for years without response, and a refusal by the people in charge to allow any edits they don't agree with ideologically.
For example, I edited a bit on the Mormon Church to say that they claim to be Christians rather than are Christians. This is factual; they claim it, all Christian denominations reject that claim. But Wikipedia deleted it and sent me a nastygram. That's just no way to run any sort of group effort, let alone an encyclopedia.
I used to edit pages to show people how vulnerable and worthless wikipedia was, but I gave up bothering. I think everyone but 9th graders know it.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 25, 2013 3:17 PM
Well, wikipedia is not the resource to consult whenever religion or politics may come to the fore. I doubt that few places are. Doctrinal disputes are common even among more traditional Christian denominations over seemingly trivial points. And my grandfather taught himself Greek so that he could consult original sources; he didn't trust the translators. So it goes.
Posted by: chuck at May 25, 2013 5:03 PM
What Christopher said. There is a proverb that says that the accuracy of a Wikipedia article is inversely proportional to its controversiality. And all articles regarding religion, politics, philosophy, celebrities, or any area of science that is even slightly outside of the mainstream "consensus" are controversial.
Posted by: Grizzly at May 25, 2013 6:36 PM
Todo lo que soy nuevo aquí y he registrado a aprender mucho más sobre este tema.
Posted by: Eric Bredemeier at January 24, 2014 4:07 PM