Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the
impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not
guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative"
information is better than none.
Absolutely not. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your
words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.
As a reader, often you approach a topic knowing
nothing at all. If
Wikipedia can at least give you a broad outline of the topic with some
clues as to where it fits with respect to other topics, then it's
doing well. Whether or not it's a neutral, balanced and totally
factually accurate article is a secondary concern to me, as a reader.
That can be true to a degree and in some cases, but this is not the sort
of thing that I am talking about at all.