posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by Serafine
YES wiki sources (qualm - confirm wiki sources/citations or be ready to defend info presented accordingly).
While there is a general issue of "buyer beware", people should always be mindful, as with anything to "Prove all things, and hold fast that which is
There have actually been quite a few interesting analyses of wikipedia done giving it comparable rating to Encyclopedia Britannica and the like, and
wiki generally does a good job of providing links to source information. I'm not aware of other sources allowing such open self-policing as occurs
with Wikipedia and people catching errors to correct on a quick and normal basis.
As with anything, including "approved" sources, this should be taken with a grain of salt and verified on a regular basis, but then again I've never
been a fan of censorship or limitation as I take responsibility for being my own arse
For me, it's a case of elitism vs. populism (or whatnot). Just as some people feel only wizards on the Hill in DC can lead the US accordingly, some
feel that only wizards in some giant informational or news source establishment can provide information accurately. I tend to disagree and feel that
a free-market approach can adequately self-police for correction on a comparative level to "approved" sources.
edit on 5/27/2011 by Praetorius
because: (no reason given)