Comments on: Wikipedia Fact and Fiction

By: andar909

andar909 — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:30:10 +0000

hi, andar here, i just read your post. i like very much. agree to you, sir.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:35:15 +0000

WikiPedia may be okay for factual information, generally speaking, but it is really poor when it comes to opinions. The guy above actually touches on the reason accidentally – it can only give one opinion at a time, but if you buy several books you get to see several views of the same subject, without any ‘corrections’ from other people.
Similarly, because it requires significant investment (in both time and money) to publish a book, you know that at least some thought has gone into the content. WikiPedia doesn’t require ANY investment, or peer review; time and again its major players have been revealed as charlatans, liars and cheats.

By: Sean Kavanagh

Sean Kavanagh — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:50:34 +0000

An insightful and thought provoking submission.
While i agree with the Posters basic thinking, I believe that he places too much emphasis and belief on and in the content and opinions expressed through Wikipedia, which can be woefully inadaquete a lot of the time, which is why I always keep Digital Current Backups of both Enc. Britannica & World Books – Ultimate Edition on hand. It’ vital to always have a second or even a third opinion available before one commits oneself to the Fray!!!
Regards,
Sean {Dublin, Ireland}

By: Earl

Earl — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:28:10 +0000

I agree with Chuck; this guy is marginally literate.
He may be a math whiz and know what he’s
talking about but his thought processes and
English skills suck. Scary to think of him actually
teaching classes to our children. Wikipedia is
a great resource but people tend to treat it
like the last word. Kinda like Snopes. Good
start but only as good as what goes in…

By: Scott Salberg

Scott Salberg — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:56:20 +0000

I’ve found information so useful and so current on Wikipedia that there is no way I can dismiss it. I cherish it and honor it.

If you have FOUND Wikipedia, and don’t trust the information in any particular article — DO A SEARCH on that information.

Wikipedia is at the VERY LEAST a wonderful starting point. I’ve gotten a lot of genealogical data from it. Oh, but a caveat here: In doing genealogical research, I’ve sometimes gotten different information from the English Wikipedia, and those Wikipedia editions published in French and Spanish (thank God I took those languages in school), and German (thank God Google has a translate tool) and Norwegian.

Use it as a starting point.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:18:29 +0000

“Firstly, the idea of books are essentially a logical progression that came all those years ago from primitive homo sapien who would pass on acquired characteristics that benefitted their survival through non-verbal communication and later we’d learn to speak with others and communicate verbally.”

What a bunch of nonsensical hogwash. Books are a result of Darwinian natural selection? Pass on acquired characteristics that benefited their survival though non-verbal communication? What is this guy smoking?

Maybe someone should pass on to him the “acquired characteristic” of a grammar and spelling checker; maybe it will increase his chances of survival on the Internet.