There was an article in Nature last month comparing the accuracy of the scientific articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. Conclusion: about the same. Wiki was marginally less accurate, but had the advantage of updating quickly for recent developments.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
(or just go to nature.com and search for "wikipedia")

Penny Arcade had a perfect summation of the problems with Wikipedia a few weeks ago. They echo this article's sentiment about the "cult of the amateur," and talk about how the internet is full of too many jerks with too much free time. A choice quote:

"Reponses to criticism of Wikipedia go something like this: the first is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project's noble fundament. If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If they do, it isn't exactly a compliment.

Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions. The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don't know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it. In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.

The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information."

When wikipedia works it ain't bad. Not an authorative source, but not a bad place to start. When it's bad it's an awful mess.

If you use 'a' source from the internet as authorative you're just asking for it. Too easy to mung up information.

Wikipedia is great as a quick and fun pop culture reference and for much "deeper" info as well... If someone really was a jerk with too much time, I suppose one could fact check each Wiki source. I think one would be a jerk to rely on Wikipedia in a professional or personally important context, if one had doubts. Otherwise, I agree with the summation, who cares. You could say the same thing about much of the information on the internet, in general, it's not necessarily reliable as fact.

Duh.

Wikipedia is as authoritative as any other encyclopedia - a good place to start but there'll be hell to pay if you cite it in a paper.

Wikipedia is a great place to start and a helluva lot more reliable or accurate way of finding info than, say, simple Googling. Most web pages lack oversight. Anyone can publish their ideas and opinions as fact. Wikipedia, at least, is self-regulating, malleable, and is often accurate.

The problem isn't Wikipedia. It's the Internet. And if you're at all familiar with the way the Internet works, you should know better than to not question anything published on any webpage.

The backlash against Wikidpedia -- yes, backlash -- stems from traditional media looking to discredit online media. It started with the Siegenthaler "scandal", when traditional media rushed to exonerate Wikipedia. What it showed was that these people don't understand what's going on.

The Internet isn't a repository of objectivity, fact, or accuracy. It's a hodge-podge of ideas, fresh ideas, crazy ideas, cliches, melodrama, pathos, and humor. It's a crowded hall of people talking. But for every 10 idiots, there's one genius madman who says things a little better, who understands a little better than all the traditional media outlets combined...

...or something...

*whew*

Settle down touchstone. =)

Your site is amaizing. Can I share some resources with you? alprazolam dosage kentucky derby betting generic ambien cheap ativan and imprint play baccarat

Thanks for the special work and information! casino gambling best online casinos diazepam feline no prescription refinance home mortgage free keno ativan side effects free slot machine games refinance houses

This site is a lot of fun very well designed.

Hi there! Your site is cool!

Hello and congratulations!

Your pictures are great.

Thanks for the special work and information!

Your site is amaizing. Can I share some resources with you?

Your pictures are great.