Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ link) |
m (→See Also) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* [[WikipediaPlus]] - A tool to supplement Wikipedia with content from alternative websites such as this | * [[WikipediaPlus]] - A tool to supplement Wikipedia with content from alternative websites such as this | ||
* [http://wikipediocracy.com/ Wikipediocracy] - "We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia" | * [http://wikipediocracy.com/ Wikipediocracy] - "We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia" | ||
| − | * [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?] | + | * [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?] - Critical article from The Register |
* [http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/1521229/when-a-primary-source-isnt-good-enough-wikipedia "When a primary source isn't good enough"], discussion about Wikipedia's criteria for admissibility | * [http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/1521229/when-a-primary-source-isnt-good-enough-wikipedia "When a primary source isn't good enough"], discussion about Wikipedia's criteria for admissibility | ||
Revision as of 17:35, 22 December 2012
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: The problem with Wikipedia
Its reliance on "mainstream sources" further echoes the pattern of commercially-controlled media the world over, so at least on commercially or politically sensitive topics, Wikipedia regularly displays a pattern of symptoms:
| Wikipedia's Problems: |
 Bias
|
 Censorship
|
 Gaps
|
 Spin
|
 Obfuscation
|
See Also
- Wikipedia - "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"
- 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
