I never did specifically answer the OP's comments, so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgruss23
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.
|
This occurs far less often than it used to, for two reasons. First, the mods are doing a much better job listening to well-credentialed subject matter experts (SMEs). Second, the mods are doing a much better job actively policing the site (reverting shoddy edits and banning vandals).
Quote:
|
It is a discussion board masquerading as an encyclopedia.
|
Discussions aren't allowed under the article tabs. Any such edit is swiftly reverted. There is a discussion tab under which discussions take place.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Because of the rapid rise in editors (users like you and I), such "agenda pushers" are rapidly reported by the masses who severely outnumber them to the mods, and the mods take swift action.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The arbitration process used to be a joke, but because there are a lot more mods and admins now than there used to be, things are handled fairly swiftly.
Having said all that, I used to do a lot of editing on Wikipedia, but not any more, as for just about every subject in which I'm a SME, there are usually a dozen others who're equally qualified. I do edit for spelling and grammar when I spot errors, but that's about all, unless an article has gaping holes of knowledge in an area in which I'm a SME. Then I'll look up the resources online, add the content, citing the sources.
My edits almost always remain largely intact (and I no longer edit under my username, but rather without logging in, as one of the mods, a complete jerk, in my opinion, kept reverting nearly every edit I made, regardless of the topic).
So, yes, Wikipedia has some drawbacks, but it's vastly improved over it's short life-span.
You also mentioned:
Quote:
|
I don't see how you can use anything as a single reference, for contrversial subjects.
|
Wikipedia is
not a "single reference." It's a single
source, but the articles have been compiled from
many references, most of which are listed at the end of each article.