What is your opinion of wikipedia as a source of factual information?
It’s usually very week as a source of factual information. It’s handy, sometimes, for a broad sense of something that has no activist content, but one must always remember that there is no expertise or true knowledge required to edit Wikipedia. Lots of faulty information makes it through…especially on subjects that are either where people may have a vested interest in “coloring” perceptions. I’ve noticed that pedophiles, for instance, are constantly trying to do exactly that on any of the entries regarding pedophilia or related issues. It doesn’t usually stay up more than a week before someone gets wise, but it’s a constant battle on that front.
wiki has its flaws, but for the most part it is useful. It is rare when non-factual information stays up for very long. Anyone can edit it, but there are millions of eyes to police anything that is wrong. I saw a stuy once where they took entries froma traditional encyclopedia and wikipedia and there were more factual errors in the standard one. With that in mind, any usage of wiki should be restricted to general but not critical work. An expert would not rely on an encyclopedia for the bulk of research regardless of whether it is bound or wiki.
