The Dark Side of Wikipedia

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Originally Posted by ggcd951

so what is the good site for reference? It appears wikipedia has a lot of inaccuracy but for non-political topics it might be fairly accurate. I just looking for a exanple of bad univercities and learning institution in usa and searched ITT tech in wikipedia. Within minutes, its president to Donald trump and the worlds like "crime syndicate", "debt slaves". Few minutes later all those are gone and appear again.

For many other topics mostly engineering concept related stuff, it looks fairly informative.

Looked at britannica, which is maintained by few scholars and respected invidivuals but the depth and breadth of information in britannica was quite limited (for obvious reason) compared to wikipedia.

It's a matter of process..go to Britannica first for overview and reference points. Then, hone in
on your subject..read the notes at the end of articles citing sources..read the sources.
True research is hard..and it is rare indeed to find what you're looking for in just one article.
Remember, even scholars have agendas..so keep an open mind..and be open to modifying what you have learned, in the light of new data.

Thank you for this question..it's an important one!

[musiqum]

Originally Posted by ggcd951

so what is the good site for reference? It appears wikipedia has a lot of inaccuracy but for non-political topics it might be fairly accurate..

Historical topics have a lot of inaccuracy as well. There is some ideologizing bias in some of them. Wikipedia is multilingual, and the funniest thing is that the different languages' articles will provide you with different information about the same particular thing.
Wikipedia is another tool of brainwashing and ideological propaganda.

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by janelle144

The Dark Side of Wikipedia | Full Measure

No surprise here-------

"But there's a dark side to Wikipedia you probably don't know about. The promise of accurate, neutral articles and privacy for contributors is often just a mirage, according to two insiders. They say they've been left battle-scarred after troubling personal encounters with the world's most popular encyclopedia."

Oh, this is clear. I went to a Wiki page for someone who was part of Reagan's Nat'l Security team. Wiki totally trashed the man, as being a "conspiracy theorist," and they might as well have said, "right wing nut job."

The fact is that the man has more credibility than most in the Obama administration, and he is extremely knowledgeable on the Muslim Brotherhood, and the organizations they have created (the MSA and ISNA, to name just two).

Wiki is about as biased a source as you can get.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by GregW

IIRC the Republicans hired a writer to change all of the Wikki articles on climate change to support the deniers.

Nope it was the other way around and it was not just some writer but an administrator they ended up stripping of those privileges because he was abusing them.


https://www.google.com/search?q=anti...lley+Wikipedia

Just to give you an idea of how fanatical this guy is here is article commenting he's glad someone died.

Science advances one funeral at a time – Stoat



------------------------

As far as Wikipedia goes it's a good place to find references but beyond that I'd be very careful about using it. I once edited some non controversial information on coal that specifically dealt with the business I'm involved in and someone reverted it, it may be wrong still today. I don't know, I never went back.

[MyNameIsBellaMia]

Wikipedia is good for looking up someone's date of death after seeing him/her on Carson.


That's about it!