![]() |
| [Citation Needed] |
If Popularity Determined Truth
That is how Wikipedia is often referred to but that is an outdated concept of Wikipedia. Anyone who claims that really needs to check where they are getting their information. No doubt Wikipedia has its issues but considering the neighborhood it lives in, the internet, they have done a great job limited the damage done to their property.
Curse Those Trolls
![]() |
| The Olden Days of Wikipedia |
Having actually been a wikipedia troll in my youth I would like apologize. Now that said, those were the old west lawless days of Wikipedia and then the site was academically a joke. On user-driven sites vandalism and trolls are to be expected and yet Wikipedia has gotten quite good at minimizing the impact of outright vandalism.
It is this ability to eliminate outright nonsense, combined with more importance given to citation, which has allowed them to become a much more credible site. They have also accomplished two of the typical ideas for traditional encyclopedias, breadth and depth, however their past has made them notorious for their unauthoritative nature. In some ways that is great because you know going into a wikipedia page that this is not the end all be all on the topic.
The Greatest Site Ever?
There is no true neutral position on many issues but Wikipedia generally does the best that can be reasonably expected. If you are really interested in the truth this can be a very good launching pad. In a well done article, which most now are, you can find very credible sources and often they are links directly to the information, something which no other encyclopedia really offers. Yes from time to time an article will pronounce some D-List celebrity who you haven't heard of in ten years dead but these errors are generally quickly corrected and honestly to be expected. I think the site is about as it can get considering how content is generated. And if you disagree, fine, just don't use the site or do and try to make it better.














