Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia"
(sharpen text) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Problems with Wikipedia == | == Problems with Wikipedia == | ||
| − | ''Main article: [[WikiSpooks: | + | ''Main article: [[WikiSpooks:Problems_with_Wikipedia]]''<br/> |
| − | + | Wikipedia's reliance on "reliable secondary sources such as {{msm}}" further echoes the pattern of commercially-controlled media the world over, so at least on commercially or politically sensitive topics, Wikipedia displays a predictable pattern of symptoms: | |
{{WPProblemList}} | {{WPProblemList}} | ||
Revision as of 09:48, 25 October 2013
Launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, Wikipedia has over 30 million articles in almost 300 languages. It bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and while that's true, reverting people's edits is really easy, and so is blocking users or IP addresses. Not everyone can do that. Who decides who can and who can't? Another hierarchy of privilege - which can be revoked if someone's decisions are deemed 'out of line' with the official narrative. Wikipedia is not as radically unbiased and fair as it purports to be.
Problems with Wikipedia
Main article: WikiSpooks:Problems_with_Wikipedia
Wikipedia's reliance on "reliable secondary sources such as mainstream media" further echoes the pattern of commercially-controlled media the world over, so at least on commercially or politically sensitive topics, Wikipedia displays a predictable pattern of symptoms:
| Wikipedia's Problems: |
 Bias
|
 Censorship
|
 Gaps
|
 Spin
|
 Obfuscation
|
See Also
- WikipediaPlus - A tool to supplement Wikipedia with content from alternative websites such as this
- Wikipediocracy - "We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia"
- Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you? - Critical article from The Register
- "When a primary source isn't good enough", discussion about Wikipedia's criteria for admissibility
