Wikipedia Articles

[ekrem]

Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups

(...)
Yesha is building an information taskforce to engage with new media, by posting to sites such as Facebook and YouTube, and claims to have 12,000 active members, with up to 100 more signing up each month. "It turns out there is quite a thirst for this activity," says Bennett. "The Israeli public is frustrated with the way it is portrayed abroad."

The organisiers of the Wikipedia courses, are already planning a competition to find the "Best Zionist editor", with a prize of a hot-air balloon trip over Israel.
(...)

Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups | World news | The Guardian

We make ourself a reality -- Goebbels style.

 

[Steerpike]

Wikipedia isn't considered an authoritative reference, though.

 

[Metternich]

Anyone who gets riled up about the 'quality' of Wikipedia needs help, fast.

 

[ekrem]

Anyone who gets riled up about the 'quality' of Wikipedia needs help, fast.

There's a section which is called "Featured Articles".
This section constists of articles choosen by users for good quality.
I would not say that Wikipedia articles have no quality in general. It just depends on the subject. For example an article about a bird species is probably not effected by propaganda wars. I think such type of articles are indeed written with good factual quality in mind without any political views that compromise the articles.

 

[Metternich]

Anyone who gets riled up about the 'quality' of Wikipedia needs help, fast.

There's a section which is called "Featured Articles".
This section constists of articles choosen by users for good quality.
I would not say that Wikipedia articles have no quality in general. It just depends on the subject. For example an article about a bird species is probably not effected by propaganda wars. I think such type of articles are indeed written with good factual quality in mind without any political views that compromise the articles.

I still don't see your point. Anyone who creates their opinions based off of Wikipedia deserves misinformation, and you still haven't answered why you care.

Sure, Wikipedia is useful about what the atomic number of boron is or what specie the Fringe-Toad Lizard is. Yet political pieces? They're all biased, no matter what they are.

 

[ekrem]

I still don't see your point. Anyone who creates their opinions based off of Wikipedia deserves misinformation, and you still haven't answered why you care.

Sure, Wikipedia is useful about what the atomic number of boron is or what specie the Fringe-Toad Lizard is. Yet political pieces? They're all biased, no matter what they are.

First, you have to be really interested in a subject. If that is not the case, Wikipedia is sufficient for casual information. Sometimes you also know already about a subject very well and you just surf Wikipedia for that subject to see what a community of users have written about that subject.
That's for example I did with Pardus Linux article in non-english Wikipedia. I saw there is no article about it, then I created one. I would not say, that the article which I created was of non-sense Information. The information gathered was information from main Website and own research through newspapers.

If I really am interested in a subject, I just make google research with this syntax
" XYZ filetypedf site:edu.tr"

That searches every PDF document on every Turkish University that exists.

 

[calgreg]

So, what is the alternative? The LA Times?