Wikipedia, as you probably know, is an online encyclopedia, constantly updated and maintained by a large community of users. Lately, it has come under fire by (ahem) elements on the Right for its alleged “bias” and “inaccuracy.” This is due to two apparent factors- 1. Some yahoo signed up and then falsified an entry.
Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.
The fact that this entry was found and corrected immediately proves what, class? That the system works! Excellent. Moving on…
and 2. The facts seem to have an Anti-Bush agenda.
If you look up certain entries on Wikipedia, you will find a message that says “The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please view the article’s talk page.” This is because someone has taken issue with the neutrality of the content on that page. This is sort of like that sticker they put on the covers of Science textbooks in Cobb County. The Wikipedia Community seeks to settle these issues as quickly as possible, of course. However, it may come as no great shock to you that periodically, some wingnut discovers an Wikipedia article that defames Dear Leader or his policies and gets his knickers in a knot about it.
However, the journal Nature has done a side-by-side comparison of Wikipedia with several more “reputable” (read “Dead trees are more reputable than a massive peer-reviewed database unless you think about it.”) sources and concluded “Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica…”
So, y’know, I never saw a target of wingnut ire I didn’t like, and I opened my own Wikipedia account and expanded an entry.
My additions begin with “Slingerland’s most famous product line…” and run through “…also highly collectable.”
What do you feel qualified to pontificate upon? Why don’t you write or expand a Wikipedia entry?