|Search user languages|
Hi, I'm TJ0513. I'm more of a reader than contributer, but make small additions to what I can.
My Wikipedia Philosophy
Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia. The “anyone can edit” design has leant itself to horrendous inaccuracies and the worst kinds of bias in the articles that are written. I take practically everything I read with a grain of salt…the bias is more dangerous than the inaccuracies. Both are dangerous when they are subtle. It’s overwhelmingly clear that (let’s just say) certain “groups” have a highly organized “presence” on Wikipedia, and I worry that other readers might not realize the subtle twists in half-truths. There is another type of bias present on Wikipeida, that of wikipedian-bias. It has become apparent to me that as Wikipedia becomes increasingly complicated that more power is given to those with increased technical know-how, or lots of time on their hands, or (and not-so-strictly-by coincidence) both.
Wikipedian purists dislike that Wikipedia is sometimes referred to or literally is a collection of quirky trivia and other “fun facts”. They want it to be more like a real encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia should realize its comparative advantage. I see it as a akin to asking your friend about something you were curious about…you’ll likely get an general, narrow, and most likely biased response. Don’t use it in your report, but it’s a staring point. Or, maybe you’ll just get a ‘little’ something – all that was needed to bring you in on what was going on. The point is, you’ll learn, and be a little more knowledgeable that you were before.
And you just might learn something cool.