This Is Awkward

Is anyone shocked by this? Wikipedia is a joke to me.

When left wing teachers tell their students not to use Wikipedia as their source, you know there's a problem.

Wikipedia caught manipulating public opinion with revisionism - nawwwwwww, say it ain't true Elmer. Must be that right wing disinfo we hear so much about.

Gibraltar is a country? Who knew?

I use Wiki for NOTHING.

Everyone knows climate change is a myth created by welfare bum farmers in order to increase their welfare rates.

Wikipedia is useful as a quick reference for many subjects. However, anything remotely political or the least bit controversial.. forget about it.

Wikipedia is great when writing a research paper for quick definitions/explanations I couldn't go without it but NEVER cite it yikes.

Why don't some of us sign up as editors?

LADumber said: "Why don't some of us sign up as editors?"

Because its -crooked-? What part of "editing the online encyclopedia on behalf of PR clients" did you not get?

Wikipedia can be ok for things like "what is the Latin name for the ground squirrel" or "how many electrons in the outer shell of an atom of Boron?", but anything with ANY political connection, it's going to be the Leftist view that prevails.

"Why don't some of us sign up as editors?"

Did a little in the past. Gave up on it because most articles are "guarded" by OCD afflicted activists who revert any edits, no matter how small, within 30 seconds.

Like some others I once tried editing a few Wikipedia articles but quickly got sick of the activists who appear to have nothing else to do with their time but revert edits. These is so much bias in Wikipedia that it smells from here to the moon. Technical articles are a bit better, but forget the rest.

As for Wales' faux outrage, give me a break. Wikipedia is full of articles that favor people, or favor products, or favor certain ideas (global warming anyone?)

The fact that someone found a way to get money from articles is hardly news. Good for them I say. All they are doing is turning a fairly useless source of knowledge into money, which is impressive.

See Patrick Byrne of deepcapture.com's saga on naked shorting and who was stifling it and why.

They've done a pretty good job on Cretins scandal.

Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal

Oh yes, Wikipedia is not bad on technical subjects, especially on fundamental constants and stellar data. For biochemistry it may be a reasonable first reference.

The Wikipedia staffers are corrupt to begin with. They find no difficulty in taking money for what they ordinarily do for free.

Wikipedia should be perforated in 4 inch squares and then it could actually be useful.

What Ken says!