You get what you pay for — American Proverb
In the following paragraphs I will convince you why you should never, EVER use Wikipedia; and not for the reasons that you might think or expect. But first, let me preface this by saying that I used to be the most zealous of Wikipedia users. When others ridiculed it, I defended it. Never again.
There are many criticisms of Wikipedia, most of which are not very interesting. Professors dwelling in the cloud-covered castles of academia complain about following wikiproblems:
- Articles are not peer-reviewed.
- Anyone can write them (this undermines academic authority).
- Articles often do not have adequate citation (people just make random stuff up).
You probably don’t care that much about the above reasons. That’s why I’m going to give you several more reasons which are garuanteed to steer you away from Wikidpedia forever. Let us weigh the evidence from the scene of the crime:
EXHIBIT A: VARIOUS GROUPS AND PERSONS USE TO SLANDER OTHERS AND SANITIZE THEIR IMAGE — In theory, Wikipedia is written by Joe Everybody. (Insert candy-canes and lollypops and smiley faces here.) In reality, Wikipedia is often written and edited by persons with a vested interest in the articles they create. Hundreds of groups and individuals have edited Wikipedia to slander their opponents or white-wash their image. Such groups are diverse, so here’s a sampling: the CIA (source), the United States Department of Defense (source), the United States Department of Justice (source), various congressmen (source, source), the Democratic National Committee (source), the Republican Party (source), American Airlines (source), ExxonMobile (source), Dow Chemical Company (source), the Church of Scientology (source), the BBC (source), and Microsoft (source, source). It is common for corporations to manage their Wikipedia page and even to pay people to do so (source, source). So here’s the deal: how about instead of reading well-researched books or articles about the above parties, the above parties just tell you what to think about them instead! You get the first-hand account!
EXHIBIT B: WIKIARTICLES ARE NOT WRITTEN FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON AND ARE FILLED WITH JARGON — How do Wikipedians describe things? Here’s the initial paragraph on “postmodernism.”
Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial. Postmodernism has influenced many cultural fields, including literary criticism, sociology, linguistics, architecture, visual arts, and music.
So the Wikipedian stated postmodernism’s characteristic, what it emphasizes, what it attacks, and how it has influenced culture. But the WP never bothered to actually state WHAT postmodernism IS (oops!). If you’re curious and want to know, help yourself to the titanic article that follows. Happy hunting!
Here is the wikientry on “plant”:
Plants are living organisms belonging to the kingdom Plantae. They include familiar organisms such as trees, herbs, bushes, grasses, vines, ferns, mosses, and green algae. The scientific study of plants, known as botany, has identified about 350,000 extant species of plants, defined as seed plants, bryophytes, ferns and fern allies. As of 2004, some 287,655 species had been identified, of which 258,650 are flowering and 18,000 bryophytes (see table below). Green plants, sometimes called Viridiplantae, obtain most of their energy from sunlight via a process called photosynthesis.
I give credit here, because here the Wikipedian DID define plant… as an organism “belonging to the kingdom Plantae.” Well. That’s like defining “dog” as “all organisms which in Spanish are called ‘perro.’” And if a person doesn’t know what a plant is, what are the odds that they’ll know the rococo, latinate designation “Plantae”?
EXHIBIT C: WIKIPEDIA IS INFESTED WITH PEDOPHILES — Logically, this point should go with exhibit A. But it is so powerful that I make it its own item. Several pedophile organizations, whose express goal is to influence public opinion of pedophilia and to produce a positive environment for this monstrosity to thrive, have infiltrated Wikipedia and edited certain articles. Under cover of anonymity, they systematically edit various wikipages with a view to improving their image (source).
EXHIBIT D: IN REALITY, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CONTROLLED BY JOE EVERYBODY, BUT BY A SMALL GROUP OF INSIDERS — While various special interests massage their Wikipedia pages, the rest of Wikipedia is largely controlled by a small group of editors. Statistics reveal that 1% of wikieditors contribute about 50% of the edits (source).
Verdict: GUILTY. Rather than a compendium of human knowledge, Wikidpedia is a compendium of human bias. Rather than being an encyclopedia of Joe Everybody, by Joe Everybody, and for Joe Everybody, it is an encyclopedia of vested interests, by vested interests, and for vested interests. Therefore, it is not trustworthy.
Some think that the new digital/internet age is a rosebud and daffodil world of free information leading to the dispelling of darkness, the triumph of the light, and the flourishing of democracy. But such optimism ignores the distinction between information and truth. The two are not necessarily equivalent. They fail to realize that the internet age might be the age in which the Lie triumphs. They fail to realize that the internet age could become, to use the words of Churchill, a new dark age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by lights which are really darkness. The tsunami of information may make us not enlightened citizens, but passive drones. So…
