Wikipedia rises above inaccuracy criticisms

Dr David HillAug 2nd, 2007 - 20:29:39

But how accurate is the information that Wikipedia supplies? A set of nerds who think that they know everything but where there is no authoritative reference. i.e to a qualified and highly experienced/respected authority (with 50 years on his or her back at least) et al leaves the information totally open to abuse. This is the greatest danger for the world-at-large, accepting what Wikipedia says without question and where if history is rewritten, future generations will just not know right from wrong. A terrible state of affairs for all future generations to come. The same thing will probably equate to the equivalent of Google. I would steer completely away, for the ramification for the future generations are grave to say the very least.
Dr. David Hill Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland Registration no.CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005, in the Canton of Bern www.thewif.org.uk

Report this comment

Dr. Carl Edwin LindgrenDec 15th, 2008 - 11:57:19

Wikipedia is at best garbage. The following remark appeared on Wikipedia - “What I’m seeing is a lot of puffed-up titles with little backing or significance, employment at something one step up from a diploma mill, and no sign of real academic notability (or for that matter real-world notability as measured by major media attention). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)” The ‘professor’ was referring in part to American Military University. AMU has over 30,000 students and is regionally accredited. When does this rubbish stop? I believe this is libel at best. Few academicians ever use Wikipedia. Try looking up the terrible job done on 'chivalric orders'. Wikipedia is merely a vanity rag and not an academic tool. Remember, your six year old sister or daughter can be an editor!

Carl

Report this comment