For those whom always rely on the free encyclopedia Wikipedia, This is for you, it's apparently a scandal of sorts on the reliability of it's editors, whom credentials are questionable, or right down liars who claim to hold titles of education, but are nothing more then common layabout!

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Essjay

Truly those of us that sometimes rely on Wiki to make a point, are relying on information that could be bias, or misguided, by these charlatans passings as learned academic people, when it's apparently becoming evident that this is not the case. This is just one example of someone lying of their credentials, how many more do you think do the same?

Is Wikipedia totally reliable or do we need to really scrutinize the information that is posted with other sources of encyclopedias?

It's run by civilians. It's just people who input information, so it has the possibility to be bull shit.

Yes, but this particular fellow was on it's payroll!

Considering Wikipedia is peer-reviewed, it would seem that this is very easy to weed out. Wikipedia has been empirically tested, if I recall correctly, to be as good as Britannica on most issues, barring the most controversial, and significantly better on matters of pop culture and other things not traditionally dealt with.

HOwever, I make it my point to vandalize things stealthily, owing to my mischieveous side.

Also, can the mod move this to free thoughts or something? This isn't philosophy.

wikipedia.... cannot be trusted... ever.

it must be takenn wITh a shitload of salt.

then its ok.

-MT

You can trust wikipedia... as long as you check out the reliability of the citations. And if there are no citations, then just look somewhere else for your info.

In an age of growing stupidity it seems fitting that reality would be built on a majority vote.

The same process that gave us George W. now gives us reality.

I use Wikipedia as an appetizer. If I'm just starting out on a topic, I'll use to get general information, but as it's open to pretty much anybody to put info in, I pretty much do what RoyLennigan has said. I do my major, serious research elsewhere, usually as close to the subject as possible.

Also, can the mod move this to free thoughts or something? This isn't philosophy.

I did consider were to place this James, however I decided to place it in philosophy cause seemingly most people around here use wiki, when discussing religion, politics, or philosophy, so I made a quick judgment and decided to post it here.

It's philosophical cause the wide spread of use, amongst the users of this forum when they quote wiki is from a philosophical discussion, either politics, or religious, since the unreliability of such a source is under scrutiny I thought this be the best place for the thread. :shrug:

Truly those of us that sometimes rely on Wiki to make a point, are relying on information that could be bias, or misguided...


The whole human race is all but charlatans.
:itold:

the history is biased and all that the UK historians wrote and is now the worlds' history as recorded...is all but their opinion.

In an age of growing stupidity it seems fitting that reality would be built on a majority vote.
its not majority vote. people vote, but its more like: "I think x because y" and if everyone says to delete someting and one person has a good reason to keep it, it stays.

watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1826903952749761268&q=wikipedia&hl=en

The whole human race is all but charlatans.
:itold:

the history is biased and all that the UK historians wrote and is now the worlds' history as recorded...is all but their opinion.

I agree with this.

I don't recognise Indian history sometimes in Western books.

Wikipedia is nothing less than a revolutionary renaissance of a widely-repressed genetic memory: A more vibrant innovation in learning and knowledge- more effectively approached collaboratively, informally, and even playfully; knowledge more valuable and expansive for avoiding the pretense of infallibility; knowledge shared independently from the heirarchies and corporatization of the loftier ivory towers of academia.

This is only the beginning.

Godless:

Citations are not a philosophical topic. It's an literature one.

Hypewaders:

My chakras are abuzz with my kundalini. The akashic record is access. :rolleyes:

You can't trust things in the internet!? REALLY!?

Besides, it's arguable that no one ever claimed Wiki as "totally reliable". Seriously. I view wiki rather as the "popular opinion", as content is mostly written and reviewed by people. Anything that people don't agree to gets changed quickly.

But as an attempt to bring philosophy into this (this is in philosophy, after all), isn't the idea that there IS a "Totally Reliable" source of information anywhere, much less in the internet, somewhat ridiculous? I mean.. You get doctorates and positions from people, not God. Science is based only on facts that can be proved, but evidence can be interpreted in so many ways. Like, say, Newton was scientifically right, in his time. Or like so many other sciences that have been considered right in their own time, only to be sadly proven wrong.

So: Is there any point in saying "this was not always right after all?!". Or, should any authority, no matter how well proven, be trusted (ever)?