Online reference site Wikipedia emerges as credible resource (encyclopedia created by volunteers)

STLtoday.com ^ | 2-2-04 | Dan Gillmor

[FairWitness]

In the next few days or weeks, one of the world's most comprehensive online reference sites will publish its 200,000th article. More accurately, one of the site's contributors will publish the article.

Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), an encyclopedia created and operated by volunteers, is one of the most fascinating developments of the Digital Age. In just over three years of existence, it has become a valuable resource and an example of how the grass roots in today's interconnected world can do extraordinary things.

[FairWitness]

Interesting - a do-it-yourself encyclopedia. I took a quick look at it, looking under "biochemistry" which I know a little bit about. It seemed O.K. as far as I looked, although browsing around in the site was quite slow. The point is that it can become useful and as comprehensive as individual user/experts want to make it.

Note one previous mention of Wikipedia on FR: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[NYCVirago]

This is not a very good encyclopedia. A few months ago, I saw a freeper quote something from there, and the "facts" turned out to be inaccurate. There's enough faulty information on the internet as it is; labeling it an "encyclopedia" will just give it more credibility.

[RightWhale]

When you remove the barriers to changing things, you also remove the barriers to fixing what's broken.

Interesting, indeed. A lot of people are putting their best research hobbies up on the web. The sites that are good, useful, correct, accurate are right there along with those that are speculative.

Inherent goodness? If one wishes to be happy, practice being good.
-Dalai Lama

[RightWhale]

This is not a very good encyclopedia.

It's just another source of info. After a while one gets to be kind of expert in some areas and it would be a rare website that contributes anything further. Even with that, though, insight is where you find it.

[NYCVirago]

It's just another source of info. After a while one gets to be kind of expert in some areas and it would be a rare website that contributes anything further. Even with that, though, insight is where you find it.

I'm not talking about insight, I'm simply talking about having accurate factual information. And the case I'm talking about, the factual information in there was dead wrong.

[Arkinsaw]

It is a good site for info you can't find elsewhere. I contributed quite a few articles. But it is not a place for conservatives.

The editing is supposed to be politically neutral. But its not, its really different political points of view fighting it out. I got tired of fighting with liberals who did not want to be neutral.

[RightWhale]

the factual information in there was dead wrong.

As good wiki-citizens we're expected to smooth out the inconsistencies ourselves, to clarify murky issues through our own professional-grade rules of thumb, to put FR in alphabetical order. The only safe assumption is that everything is dead wrong even if it happens to agree with other sources.

[Physicist]

A few months ago, I saw a freeper quote something from there, and the "facts" turned out to be inaccurate.

Did you go there and fix it?

[Conservomax]

I tried to change the DU and FreeRepublic definitions, but my changes were thrown out by someone WITHIN MINUTES! The FreeRepublic has an unfairly negative description and the DU has an unfairly positive one.

I feel that my changes were tossed by a moderator, they are the only ones who could do both that fast. this thing is a joke. Anyone who is a huge advocate of GNU (on which the site is based) is probably a liberal, don't ask me why. The guy who invented it is a whack job who loves Kucinich.

I'm all for open source, but some people see it as a political movement.