Yeah but academia is really questionable in regards to an agenda. "That's not the case with an encyclopedia"Does anyone really question an encyclopedia for accuracy?
No, people don't question encyclopedias very much, but that's because they have such a long history of providing accurate and trustworthy information. They've built up a good reputation. Wikipedia can't make the same claim. Not yet, anyway. Maybe one day, but it hasn't earned that yet.
Don't you view that as a problem though, if it's not constantly scrutinized?
I do, but there's so much information now, it's impossible for any one person or even one group of people to keep track of. Sooner or later, you have to trust someone is telling the truth. Someone out there is verifying it, I trust (because, again, they earned that trust). Alternatively, you can trust no one about anything. But then you'd know a whole lot less.
How is that 'reputation' determined though?
Going through at least a decade or two of close scrutiny with little to no misinformation, while showing the ability to self-regulate and self-correct without having to be told by outside sources that they made a mistake.
To be frank, there is no way of knowing what is actually accurate unless you are highly trained in a field. If so, it should be widely shared and scrutinized, that's why I like Wikipedia. It's the ultimate people's source of info. It's dynamic and always changing. It's the common people's source (which is great).
Wikipedia is useful, sure, but the lack of professionals reviewing it is the problem. It's the people's source of information and unfortunately most people are terminally stupid. I'm more likely to trust information from a professional than a random person on the internet. Obviously wikipedia is a terrific service and I use it a fair amount, but sticking just to the scope of your question, it's just an inferior source of information when expertise and reliability are important.
Do you have a post secondary education? I do and I can tell you the "professionals" are just as dumb.
Yeah, got a bachelor's degree. Some are, sure, but those aren't the ones getting their work published.
lmfao! I think you're a great source and I would take your word above an encyclopedia haha. But then again... schizos on crack would be overwhelmingly more creative than you...*pondering*... in terms of logic you're good with me. <3
Careful, thats exactly what the Wikipedia editors thought until I changed George Washington's cause of death to auto-erotic asphyxiation 😂
Thank youYou have a great sense of humor but are clearly a terrible judge of character😋
Oh I see.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I don't think it's a rumor but I think it's more strict than people think.
that i dont know about 🤷🏽♂️
I've never attempted it, how does that work?
Give it a try !
I don't think they want to know what I have to say though. haha
How did you know it was from being beaten on an issue? :D
Your detail gave it away as peer reviewed. It tend to lead towards you had a debate and used wiki and wiki backed you up.
Well, you're right and...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE
So obviously of some relevance
Isn't that reviewed by many people though?
It is, but not 24/7. Someone could get false info if they look at the unreviewed page at the wrong time.
I'm not sure how that works, I would think they'd have a review period before it posted but who knows.
To be honest, neither am I