I have been told that Wikipedia is a reliable source for FS issues and history. I will reluctantly believe, for I do have some faith in the user providing that information - of course looking for re-verification from GS. But as far as other issues - some I know and some I don't - it is apparently succumbing to it's "flaws."
Local News and websites have sited the following -
How do you mess up math information?"Schilt, an applied math major, said he has found flaws with equations on Wikipedia before. Last semester, a professor pointed out an inaccuracy from the online encyclopedia because some students were coming up with weird answers on their homework," Schilt said.
*Clay Shirky, is a faculty tutor at NYU"An encyclopedia can't just have a small percentage of good entries and be considered a success. I would argue, in fact, that the overall quality of an encyclopedia is best judged by its weakest entries rather than its best. What's the worth of an unreliable reference work?"
"Why, as an Emergent Phenomenon™ it provides a subject that can be used for countless hours of class study for people like *Clay Shirky, of course. Good for him - but what about the rest of us?" - Andrew Orlowski
"We don't ever talk about absolute quality. But it's increasingly difficult to avoid the issue any longer." Clay Shirky.
Response from Jimmy Wales -Author Nicholas Carr, took time out to examine the quality of two entries picked at random: Bill Gates and Jane Fonda.
He wasn't impressed by what he saw.
"This is garbage, an incoherent hodge-podge of dubious factoids that adds up to something far less than the sum of its parts," he wrote.
This comes from a discussion on Wikipedia-"The two examples he puts forward are, quite frankly, a horrific embarassment. [sic] Bill Gates and Jane Fonda are nearly unreadable crap. Why? What can we do about it?" - co-founder Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia "guildline" -•"I'm afraid that there wouldn't really be enough room to put all the disclaimers and warnings about the unreliability of Wikipedia's content on the navigation bar; pages like Wikipedia:General disclaimer will have to suffice."
•I didn't know that disclaimer existed, and most people probably(csp) don't; what about adding it to the navigation bar?
Not only are there entries of pure speculation, the "reliable and reputable sources" are still subject to the mediator / user / "commander and chief" with the only "reliable or reputability" being they were giving command of "topics." All "pages" are subject to a "commander and chief" on whether the info goes in or not. I know from experience that they have bias and opinion. And exactly how are the qualifications substantiated? For an exsample there is a "expert" on BDSM acting as an "expert" on cartoons. I do see this as a possiblity yet fail to find a clear connection or "a comfortable feeling" about this. Yes adults are into cartoons / animation (and I am one ) but who has questions? Children perhaps?Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
So as it stands, it would appear that one must know what incorrect information is before they look to Wikipedia for answers. And what is the most common time that a person will look for answers? I guess when they have a question. So, if you are doing anything more than "jogging your memory" can anyone trust Wikipedia?
Anyone else have thoughts on this?