HomeAnimal RightsWikipedia Is Good And Dangerous


Wikipedia Is Good And Dangerous — 2 Comments

  1. Hello Michael, i myself have contributed numerous photos of my tours on “Wikepedia Commons”.The article on “TRADITIONAL PERSIAN CATS” has a little bit of input from me as also a bit on the “Mahalaxmi Race-course” in India.Since i blog extensively have mostly used “wikepedia” for cross-checking my facts or assessing information and have found them very relevant.My blogs on a variety of subjects have never ever raised a question of authenticity or error in facts.Agreed, “WIKIPEDIA” being a free-lance editor site has one and sundry attempting their talent at writing or contributing and some may have ulterior motives. Articles published in wikipedia are always checked by a host of other specialists in the field and sometimes deleted if wrong or fictitious.Unlike the usage of the Internet itself, “WIKIPEDIA” does have its negative aspects, most important being as you have detected, multinational companies manipulating it for their own benefit at times.

    • I agree Rudolph. It is a very good resource. The quality is high. There is no doubt about it. I think Google favours it a bit too much. But, yes, it is dangerous because the quality is good and people rely on it, then people trust it. They don’t realise that anyone can amend the page and plant material that favours someone or something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Note: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified.