Well, duh. Of course, my entry isn't so much inaccurate as it is an extended smear, and it has only gotten worse since I wrote that in March, replete with whole sections full of guilt by association, unsubstantiated attacks, etc.
And it isn't just me, of course. In varying degrees, every anti-jihadist and every Islam-related and jihad-related topic comes in for the same treatment.
The bottom line is that anyone who cites Wikipedia, or simply uses Wikipedia, as a reliable source for anything does not realize the lengths to which some people will go to make sure that the truth does not come to you.
The "littered with inaccuracies" story is here.
Robert:
I sympathize with you, and am outraged at the Wikismear of you and others (and btw, thank you so much for all you put up with for all of us; you are superlative).
But you go too far by saying "anything".
Wiki is very useful as an information source for many things.
A reader simply needs to use common sense and good judgment in using Wiki.
The Fairfax County Virginia public schools ban the use of Wiki as a citation of fact. The kids can use it to look for sources and ideas, but they cannot cite Wiki as a valid source for anything.
Wikipedia, the Bible of Well Documented Opinion.
I use Wikipedia all the time.
Maybe, somehow, topics like "associated Legendre functions" are a different breed.
Robert Spencer once knew a guy who hung out with a friend of a lady who knew a neo-nazi. Therefore, Robert is a neo-nazi!
I'm putting that line in your wikipedia entry :)
in Wikipedia, under American education, i will put in : Bwahahahahahaha
Wikipedia is the classic example of GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.
It only deserves mockery.
Same problem in my school, but it points to a larger problem in that public school students use the internet for research rather than printed materials. Students also think that opinions are the same as facts. They even think that their opinions (remember how young they are) have the same validity as the opinions of adults
I long ago learned not to use Wikipedia for any topic other than perhaps an uncontroversial issue (as Occupant noted above). A question - has anyone sued (or is it possible even) to sue anyone associated with Wikipedia for libel?
I long ago learned not to use Wikipedia for any topic other than perhaps an uncontroversial issue (as Occupant noted above). A question - has anyone sued (or is it possible even) to sue anyone associated with Wikipedia for libel?
"Students also think that Opinions are the same as facts".
Gosh!!! Where in the World would they get that Idea???? It couldn't possibly be from the MSM, Our higher institutions of Indoctrination or from the Demoncratic Party and the Allies.
Just who could have come up with the Idea of well documented opinion and sold it to our Children? Not to mention half the Population.
Like the latest opinion of note, that refusing to drill for Oil and Gas will make the Supply increase. The logic of it at Face value makes sense, Right? Right?
Wikipedia is good for most subjects, and is it really less reliable than someone's personal site?
The danger of academic failure doesn't stem from reading and/or quoting inaccurate biographies. Many students no longer deserve the title of "student." What do they study? What do they learn? NOTHING. Instead of "students," we should call them "Cutters and Pasters." Even if they paste from the Encyclopedia Britannica they still don't bother to read it, let alone internalize it.