It made the news last year because various academics dismissed it as being biased and inaccurate, only for their research to show that the same accusations could be levelled at such august bodies of knowledge as Encyclopedia Britannica too.
But, let's face it, the reason Wikipedia is so good is for the sheer depth and range of its articles.
Here are my 3 favourite Wikipedia entries - in traditional reverse order:
- Surrey (because I like reading about my locality)
- BBC TV Drama (because it was great and could be again)
- Mike The Headless Chicken (because it's a bit odd)
3 comments:
When I was a young lad at college (a few months ago) I used Wikipedia just as I would use any other encyclopedia -- as a jumping off point for research. As many have pointed out, Wikipedia isn't 100% reliable but I don't think any encyclopedic volume ever could hope to be.
I would never cite the Wikipedia in a formal paper but then again I would never cite Britannica either. That's what scholarly works and original material are for. The closest anyone is going to get to Objective Truth -- as regards history in particular -- is consensus among scholars.
Nothing in particular subject comes to mind as a favorite but I think its treatment of Enlightenment philosophy is quite good.
Most colleges in America won't let you use Wikipedia because you aren't allowed to write a paper using an "encyclopedia" and that just happens to be one. But i had one teacher who told us specifically that we could use Wikipedia because it is more informative than a lot of websites out there... so who knows? But I absolutely love it. They have a great article on Global Warming and on Genetically Modified Food. Scary stuff it is..
I've never tasted one.
Post a Comment