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)
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.
- New York City mayoral election, 2005
- Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
- Gifford Miller (gold star!)
- Fernando Ferrer
- Squeegee man (gold star!)
- Anderson Cooper
- Constantia Jones
- Fumoto no iro
- Cream puff (gold star!)
- I've linked to MY original text, as I feel the current revision is somewhat lacking.
- John Howard Griffin
- 25th Hour
- Josh Phillips
- Esthero (gold star!)
- Studio 54
- Twilo (gold star!)
- White cliffs of Dover (gold star!)
- Ron Reagan
- On teh spoke