Quote:
Quote by: Chancellor  But that's part of the problem, Wikipedia doesn't do a very good job in the area of substantive references and evidence.
If you consider "external links" to be "referenced footnotes," I can see where you might find Wiki to be credible but I haven't seen much in the way of actual "referenced footnotes" in articles I've read in terms of the footnotes providing bibliographical sources for the information in the articles. |
I see plenty of footnotes and link to points used. Wiki LSD, or Jesus, or any thing and you'll find plenty of links to articles, PDF's, etc. If wiki uses direct findings from a study then its just as good a source as using the study directly.
Wiki combines a collection of information but it is of course biased by whoever writes it. Letting multiple people add in helps reduce bias. Books written by one author will be of course more biased.
Wiki's biggest plus I think is that everything is under one page. No searching everywhere and needing to be a member to view forums or online articles.