Wikipedia (and its inaccuracies)

[BattleshipTexas]

Wiki doesn't do a good job of removing things at all. It has some bots that stop obvious profanity or "Vince Rules" kinds of comments. There are voluntary editors who can challenge inappropriate comments, but you are totally dependent on them doing so. It is very hit or miss, and the more obscure subjects get little scrutiny of that kind. I have seen many totally inappropriate and unneeded comments that have been up for long periods. The biggest problem is if you can cite to a legitimate source it is harder to challenge. So you can smear a person pretty well with totally overemphasized but "true" comments about them.

For example, there are legit sources you can cite about FBI investigations of MLK and about marital problems/infidelities that he may have. But if the wiki article on MLK were overwhelmed with true, but overemphasized verbiage about all of that, does that really accurately portray who MLK was or what he meant to our country?

 

[TahoeHorn]

If you have a fourth grader's sense of what might be controversial and how to weight it you shouldn't have a problem. For those without that sense, if you want to know when a church in Ostrava was built you can probably count on it, but if you want to know how good Reggie McNeal is you'll likely find Aggies and Horns ******* with the content. If you can't interpret Wiki you need lessons about life more than an accurate encyclopedia.

 

[blueag09]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BattleshipTexas]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Statalyzer]

In reply to:

---

---