>There was some discussion the other day about the accuracy and value of the Wikipedia. The Onion expresses my skepticism in a more humorous way in its most recent issue:
>
>
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902I have found Wikipedia in general to be excellent. There was recently something in the news about a comparison between E.Brittanica and Wikipedia; in scientific articles, both were said to have about the same number of serious flaws. I guess more studies would be needed to confirm this - you know how some studies appear claiming that, for example, coffee is good for your health, then others come up with the opposing claim...
In theory, in Wikipedia there is always the possibility of error, but they have mechanisms to handle that, especially in the case of vandalism. Especially, there are designated persons who can revert changes.
One question that is critical for the quality (in view of the possibility of vandalism) is: are there manymore sincere contributors than vandals. Apparently the answer is yes.
Mistakes can be corrected, but on the other hand, since there are many contributions by non-experts, any mistake can remain in place for a while.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
