Quote:
Quote by: Muser  I see that as a good thing - guards against the principle of "the victors writing the history books", as it were. The more collective knowledge from disparate masses, the better, IMO, provided substantive references and evidence are provided.
I think Wiki is an excellent informational starting point. I maintain, however, it should not be used as a sole, authoritative source, a principle which applies to anything and everything. Or certainly should. That being said, the referenced footnotes for further research are what lend Wiki a good deal of its credibility. |
I have found some Wiki articles that were well researched and spot on accurate. I have found more, however, that are suspect as containing erroneous information and/or being biased toward a particular point of view. The staff does try to monitor the posts and flags those that obviously need more work, but they have neither the manpower nor the expertise to catch all the stupid stuff and/or downright falsehoods mixed in with the good stuff.
I use Wiki consistently, however, as a good source for names, dates, key words, and subjects for additional research. I try not to use Wiki as an authoritative source for anything, however, unless I can back it up with at least one other credible source.