Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007 Status: offline
|
~nods~ Wikipedia is useful in the same capacity as Google is: a starting point. If you don't have a clue about a topic, WP will provide some hints of questionable accuracy, that you can Google to find more info of questionable accuracy but less opportunities for systematic bias (apart from mainstream opinion, which even colours peer-reviewed works, after all), and then you can get an idea of which reference sources to go to. E.g. if you want info about a medicine, you can WP it, which gives you the INN, and then you can look that up at PubMed and Cochrane for detailed info, or RxList and the like for surface info. Under no circumstance should anyone trust the actual info on WP for something like that, as a whole bunch of the articles on that topic are factually inaccurate to the point that following the advice can be fatal. I'm thinking we agree, in any case. The lowest common denominator, the beaten path, etc., are all just the dominant bias of the mainstream public. And WP admits even the goal itself- if perfectly realized- is verifiability, not truth.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way. We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|