Sabine Cretella wrote:
It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon
as the error was
seen ... well, where's the problem? The best answer to such an article
would have been: well if you knew that it was wrong, and you know what
Wikipedia is, why do you make such a huge problem out of this: simply
correct things - you could have done this - so it is not us who are
wrong, but the person who "did not correct" knowing how Wikipedia
works and "officially" believes in equal chances and whatever ... use
these critics in the right way - that's all.
The individual in question was not particularly notable. It's not
surprising that no-one noticed the problems with the article. The story
is plausible, but who are the people who would read about this guy?
Like it or not
we are being used as a major reference source. Readers
rely on us to be accurate.
Adding references helps us do that.
Well I like it being used, but it is not used enough - people don't
know Wikipedia. Readers who rely on only one source are not good
readers ... they are blind readers. And what if the references already
contain that error? The reference of the reference?
To some extent readers have to take responsibility for what they read.
They are not responsible for what is wrong in an article, but they are
responsible for how it affects what they do in their own lives.
Critical thinking is more important now than ever. When the people who
fail to read critically are in positions of power they can end up
starting wars in distant places.
Ec