Today, everyone doing any sort of "on line" research must have used Wikipedia, at least a few times, if not many, many more. When I look, ok, search, for background or proof or a link that will clarify a name or term for my readers, it's frequently Wikipedia to the rescue.
I presume that I'm not the only writer who takes it all at face value. I've naively trusted that the articles, very impressively full of further links, are compiled by true experts. Here and there I've found things I don't agree with, but that's nothing rare, especially since I write from my own personal perspective.
Now I'm more wary, since I've discovered that there isn't a team of researchers. It's a compilation of volunteers who send their articles in, and they can manipulate facts.
I guess I must be much more careful about to whom I link.
3 comments:
Don't feel too bad about this- here's a study that says Wiki is not "markedly less accurate" than Brittanica.
That is, of course, until people with certain agendas become involved...the nice thing about that, however, is that Wikipedia can put up "neutrality debate" sensors and then there are discussions galore!
By the way, thank you very much for your comment/ compliment; it's very kind of you.
I didn't realize that. Interesting.
So, I guess I should still trust them.
Post a Comment