Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Wikipedia
After seeing what happens behind the scenes at wikipedia (the talk page that I had never cares about before) I'm still just as likely to use it as before. Factually wikipedia is very accurate and that is what is most important for me. If I then care to learn more about the opinions contributing to the topic, the talk page is a great way to discover opposing viewpoints. The discussion may not always be civil or productive but the honesty and the rawness is interesting because it shows how interested people are. It is also pretty easy to tell, based on grammar and logical arguments, who is educated and probably trustworthy (not that all educated people are trustworthy but they tend to be more than uneducated people). I probably won't contribute to the discussion myself unless I come across an error or a statement that contradicts my opinion or knowledge. It seems pretty easy to join the discussion and although it seems hostile sometimes it should be manageable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that the discussion seems hostile, but I think that is a result of people knowing that they are on the internet and other editors do not personally know them. This leads to a rather harsh environment where people are quite willing to put others down to promote their ideas. Nevertheless, the articles themselves seem to be very accurate and reliable as you say, as long as we ensure the citations are reliable.
ReplyDelete