On Dec 10, 2016, at 2:32 AM, David Harker <[email protected]> wrote:
> I find Wikipedia, at times, informative... but have reservations as to the > veracity/culpability of some listings there..... For one, I suggest others > read this link... > https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britannica-but-dont-blame-the-crowd > > <https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britannica-but-dont-blame-the-crowd> > . I have other references as to their ability to report "truth", but as we > all know, "truth" belongs to the "presenter". Every source has biases. A few months ago I was looking at an old set of World Book Encyclopedias from about 1960. They were filled with statements that many at the time might not notice, but today they stand out like yellow streaks in the snow. … the noble savage … Jane Austen was an amazing writer, overcoming the limitations of her gender and time … The difference between Wikipedia and a lot of other sources is that if you see a mistake, you can fix it. I’ve fixed many small mistakes in articles about mathematics. Of course, this also opens it up to people with an agenda or a delusion. (We’ve all seen in recent days what happened when people with an agenda promoted false “facts” about a certain DC pizza joint.) That’s the trade-off. I find Wikipedia to be very fair and accurate when I read topics about which I know. Mistakes get fixed very quickly. As my daughter said back when she was debating in high school: “Google knows everything, but sometimes it lies.” L^2
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ MacGroup mailing list Posting address: [email protected] Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/> Answers to questions: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup/>
