ameliorate wrote:I'm VERY surprised that you cite Wikipedia as being a valid source of reference! Don't you know that anyone can edit it?
That is a very good question. I'm glad you brought it up.
First off, is it true that anyone can edit Wikipedia? Yes it is. That's the whole idea of a Wikipedia. And if you just stop there it does sound like a very sketchy idea - but there is actually a lot more to the process. So, once again, just like any other aspect of the internet or life itself, a deeper look is required.
When you do, you find that it's actually not quite true that 'anybody' can edit Wikipedia. Though you can input an edit, at the very least your IP address is recorded (they can block you) but there is a registration and validation process anyone with any real hopes of contributing must go through, and then it gets involved, because the people who contribute to Wikipedia tend to be groups of regulars who not only write the entries but also check each others work. Any edits are immediately reported to the team who then go about authenticating and approving - or reversing - any changes.
Once you're in there are a few policies and guidelines you need to learn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#
Number one, however, of the 'five pillars' of Wikipedia is 'Verifiability':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
As you are reading a Wikipedia entry you will notice superscript numbers behind every substantive statement. If you click on one of those numbers, or scroll to the bottom of the page, there you will find the REFERENCE for that statement. It is rule number ONE on Wikipedia that every fact presented must be verifiable - and THAT is what makes Wikipedia a reliable source of information.
So yes, a lot of people have the attitude that Wikipedia is unreliable or worse, but once again I don't listen to whatever anybody tells me on the internet, and yes I have every confidence in Wikipedia, because I looked into it myself.
