"Time for change" Wikipedia as a Source of Information

[tuolumnejim]

Instead of bringing the DUmmies long and drawn out speil over I'll just post the DUmmies summary for your laughing enjoyment. 

Link

Summary

In summary, I often find Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource, and I believe that the condescending attitude that some people show towards it is misplaced. It is meticulous about documenting its sources, it sticks to the facts and strives to clearly label opinions as opinions, and it has processes in place to achieve objectivity and avoid bias.

I look at the fact that numerous editors are used for individual articles as a strength rather than as a weakness. So-called “reputable” sources of information use much fewer editors, who are often highly paid and “professional”. But consider who pays them and what biases might be involved in that fact. I would take numerous unpaid, non-professional editors any day over a single professional editor who is paid by a corporation whose financial interests may interfere with its ability (or motivation) to evaluate and present information in an unbiased manner.

The validity of Wikipedia articles is limited by some of the same factors that interfere with the validity of any articles, including the difficulties of determining what constitute “reliable” sources of information. Most important, there may be too much emphasis on relying on corporate or government propaganda in making those determinations.

[Chris_]

Sorry...anything with Fister associated with it...

[Eupher]

Mrs. E recently applied for and was accepted to a thing called "Cha-Cha" which is a web site where people can go with questions they want answered.

Since Mrs. E has forgotten more about classical music than most people have learned, she expressed a desire to be a "Cha-Cha guide" or whatever they call them in that genre.

Rule #2 with Cha-Cha is never to use Wikipedia in researching answers to questions. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Wiki is OUT.

Somehow, Wiki as a legitimate resource to information just doesn't add up for those who are in the business.

[Happy Fun Ball]

Summary

In summary, I often find Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource, and I believe that the condescending attitude that some people show towards it is misplaced. It is meticulous about documenting its sources, it sticks to the facts and strives to clearly label opinions as opinions, and it has processes in place to achieve objectivity and avoid bias.

I look at the fact that numerous editors are used for individual articles as a strength rather than as a weakness. So-called “reputable” sources of information use much fewer editors, who are often highly paid and “professional”. But consider who pays them and what biases might be involved in that fact. I would take numerous unpaid, non-professional editors any day over a single professional editor who is paid by a corporation whose financial interests may interfere with its ability (or motivation) to evaluate and present information in an unbiased manner.

The validity of Wikipedia articles is limited by some of the same factors that interfere with the validity of any articles, including the difficulties of determining what constitute “reliable” sources of information. Most important, there may be too much emphasis on relying on corporate or government propaganda in making those determinations.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, DUmmie. This is why Wikipedia is not a valid source of information, and people who believe otherwise (i.e. you) will be laughed at.

[NHSparky]

In summary, I often find Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource if you're a lazy plagiarizing prick, and I believe that the condescending attitude that some people show towards it is misplaced. It is meticulous about documenting its sources, it sticks to the facts This DUmmie now owes me a new keyboard

Pretty much why I stopped reading at that point.

[jinxmchue]

In summary, I often find Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource, and I believe that the condescending attitude that some people show towards it is misplaced. It is meticulous about documenting its sources, it sticks to the facts and strives to clearly label opinions as opinions, and it has processes in place to achieve objectivity and avoid bias.

The only rebuttal to this fat load of horse manure one ever has to turn to is this:

http://conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

[thundley4]

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, DUmmie. This is why Wikipedia is not a valid source of information, and people who believe otherwise (i.e. you) will be laughed at.

Let's not mention the fact that they are so biased to the left that they let misinformation go uncontested if it denigrates conservatives, yet will purge factual information that is negative towards the left.