You’re pretty stupid if you think people can still edit wikipedia. As of now (and a very, very, very, very [need I say "very" more times?] long time ago) you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Most edits are denied. I can’t go onto Wikipedia and type in “Britney Spears is hotter than my girlfriend” on a the page about Britney Spears.

Also, you fail to notice that there ARE sources, if you want to check the truthfulness yourself, then you can go check the sources. You also fail at understanding the fact that if Encyclopedia Britannica may or may not be a credible source… Be truthful and tell me the truth about Encyclopedia Britannica? Are you basing it off the fact that it was published or are you actually looking into it to see if it is truly credible and truthful?

What, are you saying that every single person who posts on wikipedia is not educated? Wrong again. For each stupid person and stupid edit on wikipedia, there is someone to remove it and replace it with truthful content and credible content. There are many flaws in wikipedia, but you fail to notice that there are also flaws in Encyclopedia Britannica and those flows cannot be edited because an encyclopedia you already have that has already been printed onto paper cannot be edited!

“They don’t let any idiot in front of a keyboard (qualified or not) make “improvements””

You’re probably the idiot behind the keyboard who isn’t qualified to be typing :). Sorry buddy, but free resources for research compared to encyclopedias with frozen information is win to fail. (wikipedia being made of win)

To put this another way, too many of these petty despots of wikipedium — or should I call them trolls of wikidom — are too quick to judge and to trash the contributions of others, whereas they should in most cases restrict themselves to editing same. (I am not talking here of correcting or deleting genuinely erroneous material — I have no complaint about that.)

From what I have observed with wikipedia, I conclude that among its editors are the most humorless people on earth. Why they congregate around wikipedia is a question I can’t answer. But they seem to be driven by the conviction that there is a “right” wikipedia entry for each topic, and that they and they alone have the wisdom to determine what it shall contain. The fact is there are different points of view about things, and wikipedia, instead of purporting to ban POV, should instead permit the different points of view to be articulated. Relevant information that people contribute should not be deleted.

But this is the nature and these are the flaws of wikipedia, and they will not change.

There’s plenty of lies in academia; google and wikipedia are academic. Haven’t you read the google pagerank citation paper?

People forget that choice only exists sometimes. I bought crappy gloves because I was cold right there and then. A perfect pair of gloves bought at a “better” store that wasn’t available wouldn’t have solved my immediate problem. My choice was buy or be cold. The issue of longterm value was the motivating factor.

The economics of price are fascinating, and $2 to be warm for a few hours might be a fair price to a cold man. Ditto a $10 beer for a horny man, and that is a worse deal, because the same beer that costs about $1 in a case, and you probably drink 10. That is $90 extra!

As always, the bard said it best, even when discussing the economics of price: “A horse a horse, my kingdom for a horse.”

The problems with wikipedia are not, IMHO, a big enough problem to justify disliking it, nor to stop using it, especially when one’s choice is wikipedia or nothing.

While I’m sure not everything in Encyclopedia Britannica is true, I’m confident in the belief that they have gone to reasonable lengths to make sure it is. They don’t let any idiot in front of a keyboard (qualified or not) make “improvements”.

I’m not a fan or believer in users policing themselves or the system, because what happens is we descend into a lord of the flies mentality with an ochlocratic system of rule. Plain and simple mobs rule defending their fifedom. Don’t believe me try and edit a wikipedia document document about a popular TV show or celebrity. It doesn’t matter if you’re edit is right or truthful it’s about having more people on your side.

here’s a favorite article of mine from the wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Quinlan/gaming

These gloves promptly broke, two days later.

Should I:
a. be upset they broke so soon.
b. Not care because they helped me for so little at a time when I REALLY needed it?

Sometimes, cheap is better than good. Sometimes at all is better than perftec but innaccesible. Sometimes, the price we are willing to pay dictates the service we can reasonably expect.

“So we should all embrace”
We should never “all” do anything. Rather, we should all think for ourselves, and make our own minds up

I like wikipedia for what it offers, and choose not to compare it to fictitious things that are neither better nor more accurate. Britanica is not betterb than wikipedia, and comparing it to a fictitious perfect encyclopedia is like comparing your wif to Cindy Crawford’s beauty, Germaine Greer’s Intelligence and Rita Rudners sense of humour, and feeling duped.

If people honestly feel that this sort of information, basic, overview information, is worth payting for, they are free (as in speach) to buy a better alternative. Myself, I neither need nor desire a “better” alternative, and certainly don’t feel any price is a better use of my rsources than Wikipedia and the stuff linked to.

Like the $2 gloves, wikipedia is just enough, and worth the cost, not just in monetary terms, but in the time investment required, like very few products I have the pleasure of using.

YMMV, but I stand by my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V

Excuse me if I’m less than enthusiastic in my support