While repeatedly hearing from journalists and others
who interview you
that Wikipedia is not reliable is bound to
eventually have you believing
them, I cannot believe that the situation is
anywhere near so bad.
The situation is not *so* bad. Wikipedia *is* an
extraordinary source of information.
BUT: you cannot go to wikipedia expecting that subject
X is fairly treated. The level of the article is not
uniform, meaning that wikipedia is indeed
non-reliable.
Put in perspective, this is normal, because it's the
first attempt to create World Encyclopedia, open to
all cultures (more precisely, those with broadband
access to Internet).
The problem is how to ponder various influences, which
are often opposing. Requiring reliable sources is an
excellent rule of the thumb. But even this one is
difficult to apply, because the editors themselves
have to decide together what sources are reliable
enough (for an example of such negotiations, go to
[[en:Transnistria]] and browse the talk pages).
Therefore, the real issue, like in most complex cases
on the Administrator Noticeboards, is the ambiguity
and inefficient enforcement of rules:
- Ambiguity, because there is the "golden rule"
WP:IGNORE. I have already been confronted with this,
and it's not cool.
- Inefficient enforcement, means that admins tend to
apply rules only on subjects that interest them,
and only to enforce their oppinion.
Oh, and recently, I have seen a trend aiming at
removing politically-incorrect information that may
lower the interest in Wikipedia. You probably know
that people come here looking for information they
can't find in regular sources (i.e. regular
encyclopedias).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos
& more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC