Alas, Wikipedia does not want actual experts in the subject of the article to write or edit them. I have experienced numerous instances where I have tried to correct woefully inaccurate information, only to have my edits rejected because I am a recognized "expert." I am also plagiarized all over Wikipedia in my field. Sigh.
Alas, Wikipedia does not want actual experts in the subject of the article to write or edit them. I have experienced numerous instances where I have tried to correct woefully inaccurate information, only to have my edits rejected because I am a recognized "expert." I am also plagiarized all over Wikipedia in my field. Sigh.
Understood and agreed. Sometimes it's a great source - some times it's woefully misdirected by its attempts at egalitarian editing and editorial contribution standards.
I've managed to get my very minor contributions to stick by simply announcing what I know will be considered bias (no matter how well-sourced or well-received) but citing to other sources for authority for my edits.
Alas, Wikipedia does not want actual experts in the subject of the article to write or edit them. I have experienced numerous instances where I have tried to correct woefully inaccurate information, only to have my edits rejected because I am a recognized "expert." I am also plagiarized all over Wikipedia in my field. Sigh.
Understood and agreed. Sometimes it's a great source - some times it's woefully misdirected by its attempts at egalitarian editing and editorial contribution standards.
I've managed to get my very minor contributions to stick by simply announcing what I know will be considered bias (no matter how well-sourced or well-received) but citing to other sources for authority for my edits.
Wikipedia is accurate at least 51% of the time.
This must be a guess since no one knows what constitues 100% wikipedia.
Linda, are you intimating that Wikipedia is run by a bunch of today's Republicans? LOL
ЁЯШТ