In case anyone should ever doubt that, I'm a real person, not a sockpuppet of anyone else - neither of people I don't know at all (like Beckjord), nor of people I'd call my friends (like Skyring). While I might disapprove of the tone and energy both have put into online disputes here on Wikipedia, and while I might be indifferent about their main topics, I share their concern about the validity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia and place of reference, as long as self-important and self-righteous editors can call on admin friends to quench any opposing positions to their own, be it over-sceptical or under-informed.
Why I do believe in Wikipedia
Because I think and see that the collaborative effort of many informed users worldwide can work to create a work of reference which covers a wider spectrum than classical or corporate encyclopedias could or would want to. Because the Wikipedia can be more than just a Wiktionary, it can provide in-depth information, several standpoints and links rather than only books for further reading.
It can be something else than the most widely distributed (Encarta) or the factual best (Britannica) are or try to be. And, to my great pleasure, in many respects, on many keywords and in several languages, it is.
Why you shouldn't believe Wikipedia
Wikipedia can be spammed just as easily as Google or the Blogosphere. It happens quite frequently that articles are put up which present a very partisan view, on politics, religion or critical science. Fringe groups and/or self-righteous editors, convinced of their own importance and desperate to win over admins for their cause (used later to threaten their perceived enemies as Dr***G*y would), can easily prevent a NPOV or any opinion on a topic they have a bias on.
I don't believe that you would benefit from naming names, if I said -for example- that any page on which users A-F, DG and Z heavily edit should be disregarded (even if I have come to that conclusion). I might, however, list some extremely biased POV pages here and provide one link each for a different opinion. You can then go and check for yourself (a) if that link has been allowed (or edited out) on the relevant page of Wikipedia and (b) if that link gives additional information missing from the article, puts things into perspective and gets you thinking again. (I might also tell you that Tron (Hacker) had the real name Boris Floricic, in case this was edited out by admins not aware of the fact that the anonymous user who claims to know about legal aspects of the case is in fact the incompetent lawyer who filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation, on behalf of the parents. One case where I consent with DG, by the way) For the time being:
You should not trust Wikipedia as your only source on any keyword pertaining to the fields of either politics, religion or Controversial science
Or as Sj has it on his userpage:
Warning: Please be aware that any information you may find on Wikipedia may be idiotic, misleading, offensive, dangerous or illegal. Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or remove erroneous suggestions they are not obligated to do so. If you need specific advice (medical, legal, psychosexual, career, arcane, &c.) please seek a licensed, bonded, and knowledgable professional. YOUR INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF ANYTHING FOUND IN WIKIPEDIA IS STRONGLY ADVISED.
Gwyndon 19:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
