Why wikipedia is in trouble time   2016 01 17 18.52.51
Wikipedia, The Fake Encyclopedia, Turns Fifteen This Weekend.
Thumb derb
January 17, 2016, 02:07 PM
Print Friendly and PDF
In common, I feel sure, with most conservative commentators, I can never mention Wikipedia without a twinge of guilt. Having had a few exchanges with Wikipedia editors, I can confirm what you probably suspect: the median Wikipedia editor is out there in left-wing La-la-land with Michael Moore, Bernie Sanders, Bill De Blasio, British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, and the astounding number of other people who haven't noticed anything that's happened since 1935.

And yet—here comes the spasm of guilt—I use the filthy thing. When I need to do a quick reference on one of the tiny number of topics I don't already know and can't find in my reference books, I bring up Wikipedia.

In my defense, let me add that I never rely on it. If it tells me something I want to use, I first cross-check with other sources. I very rarely post a link to Wikipedia, never on anything that might contradict the CultMarx Narrative.

I have support here in my skepticism from Time magazine, an article by Chris Wilson dated January 14th, headline: Why Wikipedia Is in Trouble. Sample quote:

The number of dedicated editors has been in decline since 2007. This means a large proportion of articles contain some sort of warning that they are incomplete, poorly written or inadequately researched.
Actually, it's the articles that don't contain warnings you should be most wary of.

All that's by way of a back-handed "Happy Birthday!" to Wikipedia. I'll go on using you, but I'll never trust you—not the way I do my precious, wonderful 1911 Britannica.