Joined: April 2006
|Quote (Kristine @ July 01 2007,13:24)|
|Unfortunately, Wikipedia is so rife with vandalism that I corroborate every fact with other sources.|
No more so than other respected sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, apparently.
Wikipedia also has the advantage of not costing $1695. Plus the errors in your $1695 version don't get corrected in three minutes, they get corrected never.
It's foolish to rely on any one source for anything (except sex), of course. I don't watch CNN (rarely) to find out what's really going on, I watch it to see what CNN says is going on--which I take with a huge grain of salt and a chaser of "they're a massive for-profit corporation with a vested financial interest in how they frame virtually every factoid they present." At least with Wikipedia there's the transparency of being able to see who wrote and edited the articles, and what those peoples' other edits and viewpoints are.
Of course, for the real truth we all go to conservapedia, right?
Oh, I guess not.
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"