It's internet meme. Heck, even a no talent hack like me has contributed, and edited Wiki entries, so you know the caution light should be on. In short, always double check Wiki's sources.
But that doesn't mean Wiki isn't useful. It's cheap and easy reference for those in the know, yet, like breaking the rules to facilitate creativity, one first has to know the rules. Otherwise, you're simply a monkey with a handgun, and users have complained for years about Wiki's leftist, moonbeam bias - even outright vandalism - throughout many of its entries.
Matt Sanchez, an international journalist and war correspondent, speaks to that very topic in his PM article entitled Wiki-Whacked by Political Bias.
For example:
Drawing from a mostly liberal media, a controversial figure like Senator Obama’s “spiritual guide,” the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, becomes almost 'a scholarly man presaging the woes of our time'.
Or how about libelous attacks and vandalism of famous conservatives in the news:
Conservative radio personality and activist Melanie Morgan has had her Wikipedia article defaced for several years by editors who have lobbied to have false information included in her Wikipedia article, including changing her name.
Michelle Malkin’s article is typically peppered with racial epithets.
Ann Coulter’s article is on a permanent lockdown status, where only the most trustworthy editors preside over the smallest of changes that have to reach some type of peer consensus. I can’t even reproduce much of the comments and criticisms on the Coulter article.
My article, Matt Sanchez, is one of the most hotly contested articles on Wikipedia and has been shielded from editing for the better part of a year.
Are the Wiki tantrums simply the work of infantile web surfers with too much time on their hands? Maybe. Or it's the editors themselves.
Most editors take their work very seriously, and are meticulous in following the Wikipedia rule book. But many editors pursue childish agendas with a perverted glee. Control, influence, and prestige — which escape many Wikipedia editors in the mundane brick and mortar world — are what some Wiki-addicts can establish in the virtual realm, except here they mostly remain anonymous and irresponsible.OK. So what? It's just a dumb wiki site. It's also a huge and growing information hub where many high school & college skulls of mush educate themselves.
Take the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, and Fox News. Put them together and the traffic going to Wikipedia is easily 10 times that amount and growing.Great article. Give it a rede.
