From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Don't get me wrong. Wikipedia is fascinating. It's certainly fun to browse through the articles, and I've spent hours learning about obscure topics that would otherwise be inaccessible or too much trouble to research independently.

Not infrequently, however, I'll see egregious vandalism that's escaped cleanup for days, even months:

  • Yale's mascot: "Weasel."
  • "Radiation poisoning, also called radiation penis, ..." (6 days old upon discovery)

If ridiculous assertions like these escape the notice of "a thousand eyeballs," then how could a reasonable person trust anything on this site that doesn't immediately set alarm bells ringing?

(to come: why other sources of information are more reliable)

This is why I feel Wikipedia is an interesting social experiment, but performs on the ugly side of mediocrity as an authoritative source of information.

Articles I started (or rewrote from scratch)[edit]

I've seen this called "vanity." Let me tell you, I'm no stranger to that particular sin. I've awarded myself gold stars for articles I think are particularly deserving.