I have a whole gallery of articles and links with factual faults and problems on wikipedia. I was pondering posting them and link bombing, but as I don't want to quarrel too much about a phenomena that isn't going a way or changing much, I didn't. Plus link bombing is pretty lame in general. But since a couple of experiences of my own, similar to yours (but not restrained to the field of history) I follow wikipedia and what happens there pretty closely.
There are even groups of scientists who feel that their subjects have been so poorly treated, that they have joined anti-wikipedia networks, such as wikipedia review, antisocial network and encyclopedia dramatica.
The OP has a sound argument for how to use wikipedia, but I have to wonder what the point is in becoming so angry from criticism that is factual in shade of the mere fact that this web-tool/organization is so powerful and influential, it hardly needs any advocates.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/11 21:24 (UTC)There are even groups of scientists who feel that their subjects have been so poorly treated, that they have joined anti-wikipedia networks, such as wikipedia review, antisocial network and encyclopedia dramatica.
The OP has a sound argument for how to use wikipedia, but I have to wonder what the point is in becoming so angry from criticism that is factual in shade of the mere fact that this web-tool/organization is so powerful and influential, it hardly needs any advocates.