A free encyclopedia that anyone can contribute might seem like a good idea on paper. However, in practice, it is common to find dubious or biased sources used as citations to justify statements and claims which support an editor's agenda. This is made worse by the fact that many search engines have instant answers from Wikipedia and that the average person probably just believes whatever they read and takes it at face value.
Can anything be done to tackle this problem? Is educating people about this issue the only way?
I mean, open source is usually good but when it comes to information it can lead to a lot of misinformation, disinformation, bias, and information warfare.
I remember listening to a talk where the guy mentions that a major encyclopedia asked him to contribute to a specific article. After having his words published in it, he said something along the lines of "If my stupid ass can get in an actual encyclopedia..."
Joshua Jackson
Wikipedia is good for things like hard sciences or things with unobjectionable facts. It's so so with things like history, but you have to contest with the citations included. In any case Wikipedia is for getting you quick facts, if you want something more in depth you, have to read a book.
Jayden Lee
>unobjectionable facts You mean like biology? :|
Jonathan Adams
how about you join the discussion page for whatever article bothers you and offer a source for contrasting claims. At the very least the article might be marked as controversial on the top
James Stewart
I'm a former contributor to Wikipedia who still vandalizes it. I wish there was more competition in the encyclopedia space. Wikipedia reverts out any "non notable" content which makes finding out about less well known topics difficult. But hey they have plenty of articles about minor porn stars but not about distinguished minority scientists.
Matthew White
I've seen entire pages on obscure firearms disappear overnight because OMG THINK OF TEH BABBIES!