How the frig is Wicki an encyclopaedia !!! :confused:
Some pages may contain some facts but plenty of others seem to be nothing more then some anonymous numpties opinons.... :rolleyes:
... and I suppose keeping low-quality articles about non-existant hardware that can't cite any reputable sources will help in this regard. Right? I'm not trying to deride Natami here, but there simply isn't much that can be said about it in terms of matters of fact.
Even stuff quoted from some big manufacturers contain BS that contradicts each other, talking about pages like where they can't even agree on how to calculate how big a Gigabyte or Terabyte is when it comes to HDs used on an Apple or a PC... :confused:
That's because different computer systems calculate drive/RAM sizes differently. It has nothing to do with the quality of wikipedia, and I can't really see why you would think otherwise. This matter is detailed in the "gigabyte" article, a well-cited and informative article on the subject. On wikipedia.
Wiki may be useful for some things but at the end of the day it's like 90% of stuff on the net ie: mostly opinions slanted in favour of the author...
Unlike most places on the web, though, you are expected to cite sources when making claims of fact. When people don't, you can edit the articles yourself. I find myself adding [citation needed] to stuff every day, and even that passive kind of editing style actually helps improving the quality of the site.
Anyone who thinks that half the crap they read on the net is the gospel truth and the ultimate answer to their questions needs to put against the wall and shot...
I agree, but you should know that wikipedia doesn't simply make itself. It is the responsibility of its users. As with anything, even outside the web (believe it or not
, if you want the facts straight, there's an effort involved, and you have to critically analyze any information which you might come to rely on. I have often found that the quality of wikipedia surpasses other media, printed, broadcasted, anything... Any fact dispute is open to the public, and if you find anything dubious, you can make the changes yourself or open a dispute, and you'll often find that others have done so already.
Short story: Wikipedia is not a replacement for critical thinking and research, but it is often half-way there, which is a lot further than most printed encyclopedias.