While it is recognized that many do not like the Wikipedia approach to information because of the ability of anyone to edit or modify entries, in truth our children are using Widipedia as a source of educational material, whether we like it or not.

I would like to point out that there are subtle semantically manipulated entries which tend to absolve or minimize the responsibility of the Bush-Cheney administration for Iraq. This is not only apparent in the Wikipedia article titled, "George W. Bush," but also in the article "2003 invasion of Iraq."

This manipulation, or swiftboating, of our immediate history came to my attention while looking for information about the Bush-Cheney Doctrine of preemptive war. When I noticed that that doctrine was not included in the overview, I added a sentence at the end of the paragraph dealing with the subject in the George W. Bush history. The next morning I noticed my addition had been removed, and looking at the "History" found it had been removed within about 3 minutes after I had posted it.

So I replaced the sentence, and went to the "Discussion" are to see if there was any relative discussion. Near bottom of the "Discussion" area there was a discussion of the article’s "Pro-Bush Bias." The back and forth changing and discussion are continuing.

more

http://peacevet.dailykos.com/

I just reviewed the 2003 Invasion of Iraq entry and I found it to be very objective. Both sides of the arguments are presented in detail. What is it specifically you feel is missing?

MY question is... Why do people keep using wiki? It's not always accurate.

Ms. Rhodes herself found that her own entry in wiki was incorrect and her attempts to correct them were DENIED!

If it's historical it can be verified but when it's opinions it sucks.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OH..ITS YOU. You JUST reviewed it.
Boy do I feel better.

Which one of your two brain cells
worked on that? The neocon one
or the lying poser one?

It seems to be a commonly used RRMB link. I use it for that reason. As I have stated on previous occasions, I always vet the material before using a WIKI link.

I've yet to have one of my WIKI links successfully challenged for accuracy.

Does anyone have an alternative resource that provides hyperlinking, etc? I've not really seen a reliable and comprehensive alternative. However, I would be all for it if someone can point me in the right direction.

It depends.

On a subject of scientific import where there's little political dissension ... it does pretty well. Like, say, the biological structure of aphids.

Nature: Wikipedia is Accurate
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-...ture-wiki_x.htm

On matters of political and historical controversy... you have to trust in the Wikipedia way, which is essentially to let the two sides to any given controversy duke it out and challenge the entries of the other side as to accuracy and sourcing, and thus ensure only the ones that can be verified and sourced survive ...

It's messy ... but oddly seems to work. Some of the time. I do use Wiki, but not until I check that things in there jibe with other, less ... "dynamically editable" sources.

You'll find that BTW the most egregious errors are usually in places like the celebrity biographies. Why? Because unlike as with matters of historical controversy, there just aren't teams of people constantly scouring the entry for things they can challenge.

So if somebody puts in there that Randi once was a ballet dancer, or something like that - well, who's going to know otherwise. Her and her family members? Errors like that are likely to survive unchallenged for a long time.

I'd like to think so, but it isn't always true, as I just found out last week - I was on a wikipedia page on the chemical structure of a particular mineral, and was reading the chemical reaction of this mineral with, let's say, water, and the reaction didn't look right to me. Then I look at what was in the paragraph below the reaction, and the final sentence looked strangely familiar - and then I remembered writing it last year, on the discussion page!!! I had simply said that the reaction didn't look right because of such-and-such technical reason, but gave no alternate solution - and it appeared on the page as-is and as if the person who had written the reaction was questioning their own entry!!! I had never meant for it to appear on the page! That scared the friggen shit out of me, and I hope school teachers aren't really accepting wikipedia as a real source of verifiable facts!!!

I with you on that one...i know for a fact it is not right b/c I go there and add rumors myself...its so fun lmao!

Evil... EVIL I tell you!

But funny!

I can tell you my position - I do not say students cannot use Wikipedia as a source, but I insist they not rely on it, due to these precise problems of unreliability. Anybody who turned in a paper citing nothing but Wikipedia would get an F from me. Of course, I would give an F to anybody who only relied on the Britannica, also.

They've got to get off their butts and go to the library.

Although, BTW, many teachers allow students to use the Encyclopedia Britannica (at least in primary school) - when Nature found that their error rate was close to Wikipedia's.

I think a lot of the fear about Wikipedia tends to be unfounded. And usually there are reference links in an article at the bottom of the page. If something doesn't have a citation, it's usually noted as needing one.

As has been said, Wikipedia shouldn't be an only source. Anyone doing research needs more than one anyway.

Wiki is no worse than virtually any other "information source" on the web, and at least provides links to footnoted claims. Some Wiki entries are patently absurd and/or incomplete. Witness the scrubbing that obviously took place in the hours before Sarah Palin "won" McCain's tap.

There IS no uber reliable, solid source for information on everything - the way some of us (wrongly) regarded the Encyclopedia Brittanica decades ago. Rather, the genius and benefit to the web is that it provides such easy access to so many sources so that we can compare, contrast and research claims.

Wiki's a great source of information. Saying it's "no worse" than other sources undersells it I think. If you look up say, Gary Webb, you'll find a much fairer account of the cocaine/contra story and his reporting of it than you would from most sources. Randi dismissing the whole site because they had her name wrong is pretty arrogant. I like Randi and all, but as someone already said, not that many people really care about the personal details of a talk radio host unless it's like Rush or Howard Stern or someone else who is hugely famous and controversial. If you're going to settle a bet or something, it's hard to beat wiki for factual accuracy from a single source.

We use Wikipedia around here all the time for general trivia curiosity, such as how old someone is, when a celebrity died, discographies, filmographies, etc...
For political or newsworthy subjects I take Wiki with a grain of salt, but use it for references to other sources.