WIKIWIKIWIK

ahhh, Wikipedia.

we find ourselves consulting this 'all knowing' source constantly when faced with a query of knowledge.  often we assume it is correct.

while it is a widely known fact that wikipedia can be easily edited by the public, it's rarely considered when scrambling for term paper facts.  it brings to mind questions:

 if we are content with blindly accepting the word of a source known to harbor bullshit, what about sources which don't?  how much of what we 'know' is made up?

DECONSTRUCTING WIKIPEDIA

this article points out wikipedia's most glaring flaw: anyone, and that means ANYONE, can edit any article however they like.  for this, i stick with a tried and true saying: take it with a grain of salt.

a great deal of the information presented on wikipedia, however, is honest fact.  the best way to be sure of any information you come by is to double (or triple, or quadruple) check it with other sources, be they on the web or in a *gasp* library.

the number one factor standing in the way of people questioning wikipedia actively: inconvenience.  we have come to rely on convenience in ways that we never used to be able to, and it has resulted in a cultural expectation.  we've formed a bad habit that we need to break.

WHAT WIKIPEDIA ISN'T

i first think, "hmm...wikipedia lists an article on what it is not as a sidestep to attempting to explain itself."

though after reading through it, i find they have eliminated the majority of material which might be submitted that doesn't qualify as wikipedia material.  i wonder though, are most people crafting a post for wikipedia inclined to read this?

what keeps wikipedia honest in the end is for every troll looking to wreak havoc on information, there's someone else perusing wikipedia articles to correct mistakes.   this tends towards a majority of balance in the wikipedia community, even if there is the occasional outlier.

the moral of the story:  CHECK YOUR SOURCES!

have a great thanksgiving, everybody!