Quote:Yes, a lot of times, Wikipedia can be ok, and it has its uses I guess, but the simple fact that I can go over there right now, and change the history of WWII to whatever I want it to be, leads to the basis of the problem. There is no filter to make sure that you are posting unbiased, factual information. There is no filter to make sure that articles like the one that was linked are based in FACT and not written with biased sensationalist motives.But this ignores the self-correcting nature of Wikipedia - the filter is other people. I could go change the article for Mr. Snuffleuppagus to imply that he was the love child of Confucius and Bridgitte Bardot, but my edits wouldn't last more than a handful of minutes before some helpful Wikipedian reverted my edit. What I can do to the article, the community can do right back, and most well-established articles have their guardian angels.
For topics where there is no such thing as a solid source or verifiable information or where opinions are sharply divided along predetermined lines, you get edit/revert wars that cause serious problems. Wikipedia's failings are most obvious in those cases. But, those are areas where conventional sources of knowledge are also problematic. Who exactly can you trust to be unbiased enough to wade into the political fracas of something like the Israel/Palestine conflict and emerge with unvarnished facts? Even on technical topics you can get into slugging matches over preferred interpretations.
Wikipedia is quick, all-encompassing, online, searchable, and hyperlinked. It's smaller and more accessible than a library, and less scattergun than google. Until something else has those advantages, the Wiki is still going to be my first stop for introductory information on most topics.
The Wiki is not 1984. Wikipedia cannot be controlled by an individual or party. Nobody has a monopoly on the information presented there. There is no boot stamping on Wikipedia, forever. The failings of Wikipedia are collective failings - sometimes, the majority just isn't right, and wrong opinions can seem factual and convincing. But it's just not possible to establish and defend a persistently revisionist interpretation on a wiki article without other wikipedians hitting right back with a different interpretation.
-Jester