I will presume that most people are familiar with Wiki. It describes itself as "an online free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which I translate to mean that anyone can cite one's self as an authority on any and everything.
The co-founder, Jimmy Wales, describes Wiki as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language." Wiki exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it".
Clearly Wiki and it's plethora of contributors are sincere and well-meaning, however characterizing all contibuted information as factual is unrealistic and in many cases patently false. Perhaps it would be more apt for Mr. Wales to describe Wi as a great encyclopedia of an accumulation of biased opinions. For that, it is most definitely of the highest quality.
A good example of how Wiki is misused quite often appears on LiveLeak, a website where you will find videos on politics, religion and other controversial and thought provoking topics. Many of the videos on one or more of those subjects will from time to time elicit a counter-comment that is rife with allegations and/or accusations that has been referenced from content found on Wiki. When further researched using a plethora of well-established reliable sources, the information was found to be conveniently fabricated.
Considering that anyone with an ideological axe to grind and a smattering of writing ability can spin falsehoods on Wiki without challenge from the site's editors, clearly it should not be referenced as a valid source for factual information.
The co-founder, Jimmy Wales, describes Wiki as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language." Wiki exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it".
Clearly Wiki and it's plethora of contributors are sincere and well-meaning, however characterizing all contibuted information as factual is unrealistic and in many cases patently false. Perhaps it would be more apt for Mr. Wales to describe Wi as a great encyclopedia of an accumulation of biased opinions. For that, it is most definitely of the highest quality.
A good example of how Wiki is misused quite often appears on LiveLeak, a website where you will find videos on politics, religion and other controversial and thought provoking topics. Many of the videos on one or more of those subjects will from time to time elicit a counter-comment that is rife with allegations and/or accusations that has been referenced from content found on Wiki. When further researched using a plethora of well-established reliable sources, the information was found to be conveniently fabricated.
Considering that anyone with an ideological axe to grind and a smattering of writing ability can spin falsehoods on Wiki without challenge from the site's editors, clearly it should not be referenced as a valid source for factual information.