posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 03:54 AM
Okay, when I was in college up to last year, they said if we ever took any 'information' from Wikipedia for any papers we wrote, it'd be an instant
fail because wikipedia is unreliable as anyone and their brother can alter information, add stuff, embellish, etc.
It was pounded into our heads that wikipedia is not valid 'citing' material. Instant assignment failure no matter what.
I think 8 times out of 10 stuff on wikipedia can't be trusted but that other 2/10 can be as I've seen articles that are, indeed, correct inside and
out. Anyway, to get to the point:
So then I see this 'wikileaks' stuff. Supposedly things that are hidden from us and made public for us to see even though it's not supposed to be
seen by Joe Public.
Isn't that on the same level as WIKIpedia? Like a sister to it? So .... just how 'reliable' can anything that has the same first part of the name
as something which is not reliable at all 8 times out of 10 be taken as 'oh my god, this top secret real information from government, military, etc
I'm so eager to learn the answer. I feel really unknowledgable right now as if I should know this. I will soon as I get an answer, so thanks SO much
Oh, if they're not related to each other, why the name 'wiki' leaks? Who came up with it/what's it stand for?