The Wikipedia problem

no screening. wiki is opensource. we want our freedom

wikipedia is a good quick reference for certain facts...like when i need to research old recording equipment for work. i find general info then use what i get from wikipedia to do a more thorough search.

The keyword there is "reference".

Bottom line, Wikipedia is a good reference tool.

I posted one thing. It was information about a performer friend of mine that had passed on.
I was bounced because I didn't go to a sandpile or some other moronic site lingo.
I also had movie, TV and other info that would have linked to other people and told a great story. The info was clean, concise and worthwhile. I didn't see anyone on the other side do what needed to be done to post it.
It's not worth the time. There are other sites...zillions of others. When WP sells for 60trillion dollars, I am sure I won't get a bit of it. Just not interested.

The dilemmas...

There should be an alternate wiki site or page for screened material. Then you could post what you want, and rely more on the stuff that is marked pre-screened or not disputed. "Just the facts mam, just the facts."

Wikipedia does NOT "totally fact check". I admit that Wikipedia is a useful tool. I admit that Wikipedia is almost always a good starting point. However, I have found numerous errors, misconceptions, and perhaps even purposeful falsehoods in various articles over Law and Science (though far less in Science).

I think some of the falsehoods are purposeful because they seem to be oriented towards a specific political belief.

I saw an encyclopedia the other day and I felt sorry for it. Poor thing. So archaic.

In one of my grad school courses, we utilized Wiki extensively. We were responsible for accurate, scholarly research and the postings allowed for cross referential connection between other students, etc...

I have corrected Wiki when I knew it was wrong. Has anyone else here felt obliged to correct errors in the entries? (curious)

Wikipedia is a great source of learning but would be great to have screening before posting.

Wikipedia totally fact checks, I was trying to edit a page on Tish and Snooky's Manic Panic hair color and it got deleted right immediatly, apparently my info was more about the creators of the product than the actual product itself. It's all good though, at least I know they have people checking this stuff out!

Wikipedia does fact check. I tried to create a page for my band and it was deleted almost immediately with a response about what a band must achieve to qualify for inclusion in the Wikipedia database. Sure, some pages will be sabotaged, but you shouldn't trust Wikipedia as your ultimate source anyway. On most pages (especially those that might pertain to subjects covered in academic papers) the sources are cited. Wikipedia is a great tool, use it, but as your starting point, not your final authority.

Some people are dicks and try to ruin the idea. However they are vastly outnumbered by others legitimently trying to help others learn about the things they love. Besides, most of the time I'm at wikipedia I'm looking for obscure things like the names of every Green Latern, how to shave a peach or what scrapple is made of.

I know of professors who go into Wikipedia and change articles relating to their area of study so that their students can't use the site as a resource. Then again, I also forwent buying a textbook for one of my classes and used Wikipedia for research instead. I got an A in the class.