Originally Posted by roachboy

personally, i don't have a problem with wikipedia. i don't buy the line that Named Authorities make infotainment more reliable, particularly not at the level of encyclopedia entries. which are problematic in themselves, particularly at the pop level (there are some good ones, though, but you may or may not read them...) wikipedia has to be read critically, but so does everything else.

wikipedia is relatively transparent when it comes to disputed information.

of course it changes quicker than paper-forms and so is open to getting pranked, but so what?

sometimes it seems that folk want Authorities so they can read something, pretend they know all there is to be known, and not think any more about it. but that has nothing to do with quality of information, and everything to do with passivity in the face of it.