.
I was actually thinking of clarifying the pitfalls of Wikipedia, but didn't want to drag out a subject not on topic. Actually, Wikipedia is very useful for innocuous subjects, and too bad those few who boycott Wikipedia can't take advantage of such. (How easy it is to click on that first Wikipedia link often appearing in a search.) Yet, people form gangs in Wikipedia on subjects that mean a lot for them, censoring others' attempts to correct matters, and Wikipedia's editorial system, dependent on volunteers, can be very ineffective. This kind of relaying of information is dangerous when people think Wikipedia is so reliable. (Notice how, on talk forums, people love to present Wikipedia links, as though Wikipedia is an end-all?) In too many cases (and even if not overly plentiful, in principle, even one is too many... given the great potential for mischief), far from a democratization, we wind up with a dictatorship.
.
I was actually thinking of clarifying the pitfalls of Wikipedia, but didn't want to drag out a subject not on topic. Actually, Wikipedia is very useful for innocuous subjects, and too bad those few who boycott Wikipedia can't take advantage of such. (How easy it is to click on that first Wikipedia link often appearing in a search.) Yet, people form gangs in Wikipedia on subjects that mean a lot for them, censoring others' attempts to correct matters, and Wikipedia's editorial system, dependent on volunteers, can be very ineffective. This kind of relaying of information is dangerous when people think Wikipedia is so reliable. (Notice how, on talk forums, people love to present Wikipedia links, as though Wikipedia is an end-all?) In too many cases (and even if not overly plentiful, in principle, even one is too many... given the great potential for mischief), far from a democratization, we wind up with a dictatorship.
.