patrick.net

Wikipedia is great for many things. For topics of political importance, it's a crap shoot. In this case, they were taking a huge gamble. One reason it 'failed' is that it pissed of Google. But it's getting a lot of publicity, and this may be considered a big success when all is said and done.

YesYNot says

Wikipedia is great for many things. For topics of political importance, it's a crap shoot. In this case, they were taking a huge gamble

If you cannot reliably and objectively distinguish the correct information from the incorrect information without having to go outside the "encyclopedia" to research it yourself, then the encyclopedia is a complete failure. Save yourself a step and just research your topic in the first place. The only effect Wikipedia can have is to mislead you, either with misinformation or with links to misinformation or skewed information.

Dan8267 says

is to mislead you, either with misinformation or with links to misinformation or skewed information.

Excellent description of the Democratic & Republican Parties.

Dan8267 says

If you cannot reliably and objectively distinguish the correct information from the incorrect information without having to go outside the "encyclopedia" to research it yourself, then the encyclopedia is a complete failure.

Not true. I find it > 95% accurate with regards to chemical processes. It provides references to check. Most of the times, the reference is sort of obvious in this case, but sometimes no. When the article exists, it's like having a research assistant to some grunt work for you. It doesn't mean that you don't verify what you find. I've also read that Wikipedia had less errors than traditionally edited encyclopedias. It certainly has way more breadth. OTOH, for politically charged topics, or any topic where there is some monetary motivation to fuck with things, open source is not the best way to go. You are arguing there for a trusted editor to make good decisions. There is a news analogy here: the MSM would be the trusted editors, and the various blogs out there would be open source, albeit paid. It's not a bad idea to check both types of sources and use your noodle to make your own judgement.

YesYNot says

Dan8267 says

If you cannot reliably and objectively distinguish the correct information from the incorrect information without having to go outside the "encyclopedia" to research it yourself, then the encyclopedia is a complete failure.

Not true. I find it > 95% accurate with regards to chemical processes.

1. Even a 5% failure rate is unacceptable.
2. The failure rate increases drastically on any subject matter that involves money, history, politics, economics, war, actual individuals, products, companies, and just about anything that matters to the masses. Sure esoteric articles of interest only to scientists and mathematicians won't attract propagandists. When was the last time any government, corporation, or terrorist organization cared about the shape of a water molecule? However, most references to Wikipedia don't fall into that category, and even then there are far more reliable sources than Wikipedia. In fact, most factual Wikipedia content is simply copy-n-pasted from another source, maybe reworded to make it look original.
3. This still doesn't solve the problem that you have to know what facts are right and what are wrong. If you know that before hand, Wikipedia isn't teaching you anything. If you have to verify the facts from other sources, save yourself a step and possible misdirection. Go directly to real reputable sources.
4. Even using Wikipedia for such esoteric articles still supports the propaganda machine by making more popular and legitimized. This is still a bad thing.

HEY YOU says

Excellent description of the Democratic & Republican Parties.

The only way to end the two-party system is to change election laws. Start promoting that.

Darn in, now I'm hungry for a burger! Cut the pickles and ketsup.

Dan8267 says

1. Even a 5% failure rate is unacceptable.

It's actually much higher than 95%. I just didn't want to distract from the point that it was high.Dan8267 says

If you have to verify the facts from other sources, save yourself a step and possible misdirection.

Some people have to pay to access those sources. It's nice to know which ones to pay rather than accessing 20 shot gun style. Even if you don't have to pay, you might want to cut back on the busy work. Sure, you'll check all references you can if it's really important. Sometimes, it's not really important. Wiki is just another tool that is sometimes right for the job and sometimes wrong.

The power of the internet.