Traveller wrote:Don't rant Marilith. Just do what I did, and edit the entry.The beauty of Wikipedia is that you can fix errors.
Badmike wrote:While interesting to look through, Wikipedia is the largest pile of shite since MySpace. Every single time I've used it for any general topic, I've found error upon error upon error in the entries I've seen. Basically anyone can enter anything, and they do. A bunch of talk show hosts in Dallas for a sports station entered their personal info like they were famous people (as a joke) and it's been up for awhile, supposedly it's always going to be "deleted" but it never has been. Near to being worthless.
VermilionFire wrote:Actually Wikipedia is a pretty good starting point for basic research, which is all an encyclopedia has always been. Wikipedia can certainly be abused and contain errors, but in science, for example, the British journal Nature found Wikipedia up to snuff with the venerable Britanicca (which also has errors and goes out of date faster). Nature articleAs for MySpace, well, it's trite nonsense that will be superceded by other trite nonsense faster that one can say Friendster.
Deadlord39 wrote:Actually, it is indeed useless, since the data would need to be verified as correct. If you looked at the data and knew it was correct, it was useless to you, since you already knew. If you looked and didn't know if it was or not, still useless, since the method of verification used (and one would be necessary) would be a better original source than Lickmypedia.
VermilionFire wrote:That goes for anything published, whether it is in binary or paper/ink. Errors, lies, selective truths, spin, etc. can make it through gatekeepers of paper/ink consciously and unconsciously as easily as in this new digital medium.