Wikipedia

By | December 13, 2005

Originally in this article, a guy was outraged that a Wikipedia entry had his biography linking him to the Kennedy Assassination. Then later, in this article, this guy admits he did it as a joke. He said he didn’t know Wikipedia was used as a serious reference tool. This is hilarious to me.

I have edited pages in Wikipedia myself. It is surprisingly simple and completely open to abuse. I can not imagine this continuing without some form of moderation or process. Imagine finding an article online about you that says you are the leader of the KKK in your neighborhood. Is it slander to put up a website saying someone is evil? How can we regulate/legislate this issue without trampling on the freedom of speech. I do not see an easy method. Somewhat I am surprised that the Internet has not had more troubles on this front so far.

Wikipedia is a great resource, but I have to admit, I don’t trust it. How can you when someone, anyone, can change the date that WWII ended in 30 seconds? Wikipedia needs moderators, fact checkers.

Hmm, say “Fact Checkers” 5 times fast.

One thought on “Wikipedia

  1. rluxemburg

    Wikipedia is aware of this issue & covers it in depth here:

    Common Objections

    I’ve found Wikipedia quite useful this semester when researching economics topics for class. Whoever’s doing their econ articles is excellent; the explanations of various aspects of economic theory are generally easier to understand than those in my textbook, and are just as accurate.

    Reply

Leave a Reply