http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html?ref=technology&gwh=A2E6220FC0D38A000CDC59EC519ED138
We all know Wikipedia- the good, the bad and the ugly. While I think it can be useful for looking up random things/facts/tidbits, I don't think it should be used as a main information resource. I think I'm in the minority. Case in point: Wikipedia doesn't always include everything, contrary to what people believe about it. The main article on Sept 11 does not include any information regarding theories believed by "truthers" (people who believe that the government caused 9/11, not necessarily the terrorists). I'm not saying I'm a "truther"- but if I'm reading what's supposed to be an encyclopedia article about the event, I'd like to know that there has been dispute/dissent about what happened. I mean, when you talk about the Kennedy assassination, you always mention all the conspiracy theories. Same with the moon landing. Why not this, Wikipedia?
I routinely look up technical data on Wikipedia, and always feel a little dirty about it.
ReplyDelete