Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Oh, well, I read many of the actual journal articles, and what they say differs notably from what this Wikipedia article says. And I've experienced that again ... and again ... and again. I use Wikipedia with some frequency ... and I recognize it's limitations. I find that many read Wikipedia and simply assume that what is written there is correct. So in this sense, the problem is with the readers. I agree there is much of value there. The challenge lies in knowing how to discern what is NOT of great value, and most people are poorly equipped for this. All wiki-style posting environments are open to significant input and at the same time subject to significant error, this is in the nature of the wiki technology. It enables anyone, anywhere, to be able to add to the content of anything, anytime. And as any reasonable person might imagine, this can be both good news and bad news. Elchanan _____ Daniel Johnson Wednesday, December 05, 2007 1:05 PM Re: Acrylamide I think its sad to hear someone dismiss Wikipedia like this. It is true that there are many non-featured, less popular articles that are more biased depending on who is editing them. If you have a problem with an article, why not take a few minutes to edit it and find a study to cite to support your position? This can only help build the integrity of Wikipedia which is important as this is where many people turn to first when they are looking for information. <<< snip >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.