37
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − +
→Unreliability of Wikipedia: reworded some of my earlier additions for clarity
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==
Wikipedia relies on self-selected "editors" to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by "well-educated, well-informed content experts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia</ref> Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But, as below ("Arbitrary Standards"), editors can delete, without collaboration, any entry they can find any of a number of reasons in Wikipedia guidelines, even those entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors for which they can find some secondary source to support it.
Wikipedia relies on self-selected "editors" to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by "well-educated, well-informed content experts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia</ref> Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But, as below ("Arbitrary Standards"), editors can delete, without collaboration, any entry they dislike, citing one of the many Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. Entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles are deleted by editors with an ideological bias. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors.
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia: