Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wikipedia definitely has its uses but I've found it unreliable on topics of a political or ideological nature. If you want to know if a topic is handled in an unbiased manner, don't look at the article itself, look at the "Talk" tab for that page. Note that even that page is often heavily edited but you get a sense of the narrative that is driving the editing.
College? Jr and High Schools don't allow wikipedia as a source, either. I can't even believe that has to be explained. /smh
I've told my kids that, when they're writing reports for school, Wikipedia will give them a good overview of the topic. Also, it will provide a handy list of sources for further research. But of course, I remind them of their schools' policies against using it as a primary source. Nevertheless, it's very useful as an introduction to whatever topic they're researching.
I've told my kids that, when they're writing reports for school, Wikipedia will give them a good overview of the topic. Also, it will provide a handy list of sources for further research. But of course, I remind them of their schools' policies against using it as a primary source. Nevertheless, it's very useful as an introduction to whatever topic they're researching.
Don't be so sure about that. Wikipedia might be useful to locate some actual sources, but the source listings, too, are heavily influenced by the ideological and political leanings of whoever has been most active and most recent in editing the article, so sources that directly contradict others might be deliberately excluded.
Don't be so sure about that. Wikipedia might be useful to locate some actual sources, but the source listings, too, are heavily influenced by the ideological and political leanings of whoever has been most active and most recent in editing the article, so sources that directly contradict others might be deliberately excluded.
Good point. I guess I was thinking more about articles about non-political, non-controversial topics. I've read the Wikipedia articles on several non-controversial historical events with which I'm very familiar, and I've found them to be accurate and complete, with a comprehensive source list.
Wikipedia definitely has its uses but I've found it unreliable on topics of a political or ideological nature. If you want to know if a topic is handled in an unbiased manner, don't look at the article itself, look at the "Talk" tab for that page. Note that even that page is often heavily edited but you get a sense of the narrative that is driving the editing.
No. Wikipedia has a severe bias to the Left on any controversial political topic.
You are mimicking the whiner - in -chief with your complaints and moaning about unfairness and bias. The Donald has made this an artform and no one other than the "turn the blind eye and deaf ear crowd" are aficionados.
Good point. I guess I was thinking more about articles about non-political, non-controversial topics. I've read the Wikipedia articles on several non-controversial historical events with which I'm very familiar, and I've found them to be accurate and complete, with a comprehensive source list.
History? Lets take a well-known historic event: The Great Depression, particularly how it was handled by FDR. For example, the wikipedia page on FDR doesn't list the UCLA and Penn (Ivy League) economists' research confirming that FDR's economic policies prolonged the Great Depression by at least 7 years:
Quote:
"Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, economics professors at the University of Pennsylvania and UCLA respectively, estimate the New Deal's labor and industrial policies caused the Depression to last seven years longer than otherwise."
Or that the reason health insurance is tied to one's employer (which many people, particularly those on the left, decry) is due to FDR's 1942 Economic Stabilization Executive Order:
Quote:
"In 1942, with so many eligible workers diverted to military service, the nation was facing a severe labor shortage. Economists feared that businesses would keep raising salaries to compete for workers, and that inflation would spiral out of control as the country came out of the Depression. To prevent this, President Roosevelt signed*Executive Order 9250, establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization.
This froze wages. Businesses were not allowed to raise pay to attract workers.
Businesses were smart, though, and instead they began to use benefits to compete. Specifically, to offer more, and more generous, health care insurance."
It is one of the most reliable, unbiased, and neutral sites out there. What do you think is better and why?
Yes, you can wikipedia just about anything and become informed on it all in a neutral manner.
Neutral? Nope. Even wikipedia itself says it cannot be used as a source.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
