I get to spend a lot of time with people. Not always speaking with them, but as a commuter, you're just around them constantly. In this situation, you can't forget people all have their pet interests, and they're going to tell you about them whether you're listening or not.
In this regard, Wikipedia might be the e-zanax this country needs.
The site takes its knocks for being unreliable, constantly changeable by any fringe group of nuts with an agenda. That true, but if you're going to Wikipedia for information on World War II, presidential administrations in the last 100 years, or science thats your own damn fault.
Wikipedia was made for the pet topic. Lets just look at the possible sales pitch, "debate the minutia of semi-colons, sea chantys from pre-1880, and the darning of socks with others who are prepared to get into the historial blood match that is [your pet topic]."
And there it is. The outlet to blather your insignificant interests into. And I have to believe the site knows this. Drop by the front page and you'll have riveting topics handed to you such as...
The Byzantine navy
Japanese settlement in Palau
or
Wilfred Buckland
And because of this, it bothers me when people say its unreliable.
"people can just go in and EDIT!"
I can't imagine how bored you'd need to be to edit anything related to the Byzantine Navy, but who am I to say. Maybe someones pet issue is complaining about how unrealiable Wikipedia is, and maybe they engage in self-preservation.
Novels have been written about stranger characters.
2 comments:
Wikipedia is the lazy man's tool. I have seen people use it that have access to ebscohost. It's too convenient and too unreliable. At the very least research the references that are usually at the bottom and if there aren't any, use a more reliable research tool.
So, to answer your question, no, it isn't good, as it allows unsubstantiated information to be promulgated and taken as fact, which is usually the tool of the propagandist.
I might agree with you, save for the fact that I'm not advocating its use as a factual bastion. More accurately a dumping ground for the uninterresting and a hyperspecifically interested (that can't be a word).
I think if you're looking at it from a political angle you're probably correct. But as it happened, this once I wasn't.
Good to see you again though, TRG.
Post a Comment