"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> As for the Rothschild's etal: I have not yet read the WIIKIPEDIA take;
The public would be better off banning WikiPedia. Any publicly editable
data base is not to be trusted.
"Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia:
it’s
an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."
.... And it isn't working very well.
http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html
Because of the massive number of lawsuits against Wikipedia, an enormous
number of pages have been forced to carry the heading, "This page is
currently
under dispute over it's content accuracy". "This Article or section may
require
cleanup", and other disclaimers. It's becoming a real sore on every
teacher's
ass in the country for a few years now - that being a publicly editable
database,
Wikipedia is subject to containing completely falsified or highly biased
and/or
misleading information.
http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring06/wws528f/?p=68
The problem is so blatant, that various Wikipedia foreign sites are being
shut
down by the respective governments to prevent the imparting of fraudulent
information to the public.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedianewsisraelcensor****p48480706.html
The big problem, is that students (and other inquisitive minds) are also
generally too lazy to find a library or other printed reference materials
as
sources, so they sit behind their computers and take the easy way out...
believing that what they read in 'the 'pedia' is the truth. In the US, a
great
number of teachers are currently refusing to accept Wiki as a reference
on research papers. It's a known issue that it contains false information
as a result of being publicly editable.
It's so easy to commit fraud on Wikipedia, that it's often the brunt of
practical jokes...
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=infotech&sc=&id=16057&pg=2
<same story>
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/roush/posts.aspx?id=15974
Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
"accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica... but they aren't
staying aligned with the truth by admitting that we aren't talking about
spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors here... we're talking about
complete fraud.
http://emacsmood.livejournal.com/101766.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
Saturday, January 21, 2006
"There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic
problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia
Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia,
consider themselves responsible for the content. If you don’t believe
me, then carefully read Wikipedia’s disclaimer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
Want a sample of this crappola that people could actually, though
unintentionally, buy into without checking other sources?
June 02, 2006
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/BUSINESS/606020422/1003/rss03
" Popular Wikipedia entries, such as on President Bush, are
continually vandalized. An entry on Wikipedia founder Jimmy
Wales once was falsified with a reference that had him being
shot dead.
In 2005, oil giant ExxonMobil's entry was altered by a disgruntled
Internet user who changed the cor****ate slogan to "Robbing you
blind" and the name of the company chairman to "J.R. Ewing."
This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
responsibility for it's accuracy.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
|
