[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is editted by PAYED professionals and experts

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

Someone came to Wikipedia's defense today:

http://www.conservapedia.com/ 
Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_about_twice_as_non_religiou 
s_as_Americans

"Wikipedia is a GLOBAL source. Edited by GLOBAL users, who all are  
supposed to be submitting factual information or for controversial  
subjects, both possible sides (or all possible sides if more than  
two). So no-matter what, the end-result on Wikipedia, after it is  
editted by its PAYED professionals and experts, is factual  
information and non-biased articles. Wikipedia, and any other site  
should not have to cater to the religious just because there are more  
of them in America. There are other countries too, and nobody is  
attempting to cater to them. There are other points of view, but  
nobody is catering to them. Facts are facts are facts, they remain  
the same whether they support religious claims or not. 100% of  
America could be Creationists, yet Wikipedia would still show every  
possible side of things, not ONLY the creationist part, if you  
understand what I mean. Every statistic that is used to try and show  
that Wikipedia has biased is 100% irrelevant in every way."

No, I do not think this is a joke. (Although on Conservapedia it is  
always hard to be sure. A new piece of jargon has emerged on  
Conservapedia, one which I don't think I've ever seen on Wikipedia:  
the phrase "parody vandal.")

I wish my reaction to this could be something simple, like, "You tell  
'em kid! I stutter!" But that "PAYED professionals" part disturbs me.

How many other Wikipedia readers think this?

As nearly as I can guess at his thinking, it must go something like  
this:

1a) Wikipedia must be reliable, because it's at the top of so many  
Google searches, and "they" wouldn't put it at the top if it weren't.

Or (more sophisticated version of same)

1b) Wikipedia's being at the top of so many Google searches proves  
that a lot of people use it, so it must be reliable.

2) The only way for an information source to be reliable is to be  
"editted by PAYED professionals and experts."

3) Therefore, Wikipedia must be "editted by PAYED professionals and  
experts."

Fortunately, Wikipedia's mission is to be a free encyclopedia,  
because if its mission was to make some point about the virtue of non- 
authoritarianism and the sterility of "expertise," it's not getting  
through.

I wonder how many Wikipedia readers even think of the possibility  
that they could be looking at a page during the minute or so that it  
contains unreverted vandalism?