Quote:
Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
Why would you expect any controversial subject to be set in stone?
|
I don't and I never said I did -- but there are agenda driven people editing wikipedia that immediately change any edits that disagree with their point of view - effectively limiting the entries to one side of the issue. In other words, there are people there trying to set in stone the "acceptable" point of view of controversial issues.
Quote:
I don't see how you can use anything as a single reference, for contrversial subjects.But does that make it a "waste of time"? 
|
Yes, in my opinion, the brief time I tried contributing to Wiki was a complete waste of my time. When I post something on BAUT - it stands as written - unless
I edit it to fix the typos. On Wiki you have dozens of people arguing over not only phrasing, but content.
It is a discussion board masquerading as an encyclopedia.
Quote:
|
That was my point. If you're using it to look up country statistics, for instance, there's not going to be a lot of controversy. But if you're expecting the final word on ATM theories--well, where would you find it?
|
I don't think anybody should be looking for the "final word" on ATM theories. Besides - I don't mean "ATM science" when I say "controversial" - I'm talking about anything - politics, science, whatever that is controversial. You have agenda pushers that singlehandedly control the content because they've apparently got time to sit there and immediately upon someone else editing an entry they follow, they check that entry and then reverse it back to the version they liked.
If you want to contest this behavior there is an arbitration process - but for me, there is little value in getting involved in Wiki editing.