I'll be the first one to admit that I go to Wikipedia for useless information to fill time and space, but with a clear understanding that there is a large amount that is false based on the authors and the option to edit whats being written.
Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites becasue its easy to understand, all the information we want is on there...even if it is false, or tweeked a little, it gives one an answer regeardless of truth behind it. People feel the need to go on and add random nonsense to pages for a good laugh, but all it has caused is major issues to the point where the founder doesnt even want to be part of it anymore.
The idea of the website is genius, allowing you to type in anything and everything and being able to find some sort of resource to lead you on a path for an answer.
It is good to know that the site has started cracking down on things because even though seeing "Trace Cyrus" named as a "Horse" on his bands wikipedia page (which has recently been edited back to the original band members names), it still is hurtful and is just another way for a person to feel attacked by a mass majority.
The Wiki is just another site with more information than it needs, we all use it, maybe just for humor, maybe when we're bored...but all this site contians is a lack of source and it is "not an encyclopedia". The fact that the public can change and author things proves that its just one of many random sites on the web that got popular really fast.

Yes, viewing WikiP as a hybrid is our best recourse. I like never laughed in the face of a Brittanica page. I certainly didn't laugh when I had to physically appear in the library to read it. And, no way I would have laughed when I realized that the article I was reading was five years old--and the information hopelessly out of date.
ReplyDelete