I beg to differ somewhat. Many times Wikipedia's error rate has been compared with those of major encyclopedia publishers. Every time it compares favorably. You might think that open source knowledge would be plagued by bias. In fact, the opposite is more likely to be true because on major and controversial issues your likely to have a w…
I beg to differ somewhat. Many times Wikipedia's error rate has been compared with those of major encyclopedia publishers. Every time it compares favorably. You might think that open source knowledge would be plagued by bias. In fact, the opposite is more likely to be true because on major and controversial issues your likely to have a wide-diversity of belief, but they all are as likely to care as much about such an issue and would actually moderate each other.
Differ as you please. On some subjects wikipedia is very helpful, but when it comes to "touchy" subjects, i.e. politics, religion and even national myths, like that of the "Pilgrims" proceed with caution.
I know for a fact that some "touchy" subjects are dominated by ideologues and people with an agenda.
I beg to differ somewhat. Many times Wikipedia's error rate has been compared with those of major encyclopedia publishers. Every time it compares favorably. You might think that open source knowledge would be plagued by bias. In fact, the opposite is more likely to be true because on major and controversial issues your likely to have a wide-diversity of belief, but they all are as likely to care as much about such an issue and would actually moderate each other.
Differ as you please. On some subjects wikipedia is very helpful, but when it comes to "touchy" subjects, i.e. politics, religion and even national myths, like that of the "Pilgrims" proceed with caution.
I know for a fact that some "touchy" subjects are dominated by ideologues and people with an agenda.