
Wikipedia: You Still Can't Trust It - kingsidharth
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375754,00.asp
======
salvadors
Ah, another article that doesn't even understand how Wikipedia functions
(doesn't know how to check the history of an article, seems to think that you
need the Watchlist for that), never mind how it _works_. There are certainly
sensible complaints that can be made about Wikipedia, but this article is
still living in 2004.

Wikipedia is at least as accurate as any other encyclopedia, but unlike his
Britannica example, when it's not, you can actually _do_ something about it.

And the Microsoft complaint is just bizarre. Calling it (and not just Apple,
but also Oracle, and GE, and, well, pretty much every, erm, American
multinational corporation) an American multinational corporation is a simple
statement of fact that's not in the least sinister! And to expect the
Microsoft article to _not_ highlight that they'd been found guilty of
significant anti-trust violations in the US and EU would be much more biased
than to include it.

This isn't even a _good_ hatchet-job.

------
hoag
We definitely used to use wikipedia in law school while in class to compliment
professors' lectures; it was pretty common practice, not to mention its
invaluable help in studying for exams. Although certainly not citable as any
primary, secondary, or even tertiary authority, it's definitely a valid
starting point to say the least.

And hey: it's the only encyclopedia in the world that has been at least
somewhat translated into Klingon :) That's gotta count for something :)

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Er, do you mean "complement"?

~~~
hoag
<embarrassed>I do, thank you. :)</embarrassed>

------
hermanthegerman
I always found the fact that Wikipedia doesnt exactly assure you of having
discovered final, exact truth absolutely delighting ;-)

Maybe we will see the cultural influence of this 'negotiation' 10 or 20 years
from now. It must have some kind of influence that all kids in the last few
years have learned that actually all knowledge is fabricated by humans, rather
than representing a historical or scientific truth. Not saying that there
isn't one, but it makes the process of power and arguments that lead to a
'common sense' on any subject more transparent.

"There are always four sides to a story: your side, their side, the truth and
what really happened."

------
beej71
He can reuse this article for Wikipedia's 20th birthday. That's efficiency!

------
drallison
I think I would place more credence in a Wikipedia article than I would in a
PC Magazine article. Wikipedia is almost always on point, lucid, and timely.
It is an amazing resource. But like any other source, it contains errors and
so cannot always be considered authoritative.

~~~
hoag
Right, but of course that's the beauty of it, right? Communal editing (helps)
ensures that most errors are short lived. I actually took the effort to edit
an article once. It was on hearsay. There were some complicated nuances as
between certain hearsay exceptions that the article was trying to clarify. I
noticed some errors and confusing explanations, and set about spending a few
hours figuring out how best to rewrite that section. Making the changes of
course also helped me to learn it once and for all.

As they say, no better way to learn than to teach.

