Wikipedia: Beneath the Surface
Top Comments
All Comments (15)
-
@transworId I highly doubt that look at 99% of whats on the internet.
-
good balanced take on wikipedia, but the expert argument is unnecessary because no original research is allowed anyways. Everyone is pointing back to sources that are then evaluated for their expertise.
-
The problem with "experts" is that they're not always right, which some people seem to think. Most of my teachers point out that the information on Wikipedia usually isn't written by experts and therefore can't be trusted. The problem with this mentality is that even though I may not be an expert, my knowledge is worth just as much as an experts.
-
Wikipedia is a JOKE. It's the poorest source of information on the internet.
-
Very interesting and comprehensive video. It seemed to put a (perhaps unnecessary) emphasis on the dynamics of contentious articles. In some articles, especially those in the realm of natural science, maintaining a neutral point of view is extremely easy because so much of the content is based on data and facts rather than conflicting viewpoints.
Also, slight inaccuracy: Anyone can add a content banner, not just admins.
-
i gonna make a wikipedia page
jubi
-
Nicely done video! I've added it to a resource I developed on Wikiversity, called 'Inside Wikipedia' (can't seem to post links here in comments).
-
very balanced....i didn't trust it at first but now that i understand the concept i use it a lot more
-
Why do they keep saying "quality and accuracy", when they really mean regurgitation of the party line?
Very nice! Unusually nuanced and balanced treatment.
ronwgilmour 2 years ago 17
I love Wikipedia and use it all the time. So far, I've found the articles very accurate. I was impressed that Wikipedia had an article detailing the history of coupons.
themagicofcoupons 1 year ago 9