Quote:
|
One other point I thought about last night after going to bed. I thought it was interesting that you questioned the article on Snopes, yet held the information on wikipedia up as your source regarding the British trial of Inconvenient Truth. The reason that is interesting is because Snopes exhaustively researches every article they address on their website. Wikipedia, on the other hand, accepts input from readers regarding their topics. Any reader of wikipedia can add to the information on their site. I don't know how thoroughly wiki researches the information they receive. Hopefully, they check it out for themselves before posting it. The point is that the information on wiki could be akin to the information found on any forum where readers submit thier own information. The wiki article on the trial says the judge approved the overall message of the film, but I have to ask if wiki also mentions the ruling of the judge that the film is a political effort that tells only one side of the story and showing the film without adding that disclaimer would be a violation of the Education Code. I left out the part about the judge saying it would be akin to political indoctrination, because that may be part of the spin added by the source I used. But if the judge ruled the disclaimer must be made and that information isn't included on wikipedia, then wiki is also not providing the whole story. I haven't had time to check it myself. It's waay too early in the morning to start googling stuff like that. I'll check it later today as time permits.
|
Well, the thing is with wiki all info. can be contested by anyone who thinks it isn't accurate. Accuracy isn't the only thing tested, haven't you ever seen the notifications on top of some wiki articles, warning people that some believe this info. is slanted or that this point is under investigation? I like it because they put the warning there and then let you decide for yourself. If I ever see a header like this in any article I quote, I then either don't quote it, or let someone know the info. is in conflict at least on wikipedia.
This is their general policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._point_of_view
Then, they specify something which has it's own page dedicated to it's definition called "Weasel words". I like it because it brings awareness that even citations and quotes can be used in a misleading manner.
Here is one header that sometimes appears of conflicted articles. It appears above the text with an orange exclamation mark so it is seen immediately
Quote:
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (April 2008)
|
Then there is also something called "peacock words", which I just discovered existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacock_words
I am also aware of an incident where someone claiming to be an expert edited something falsely in wiki a year or so back, and then forced them to do some kind of "check" when allowing info. to be added in controversial articles. For example, you will see that GWB's wiki page is locked from editing (indicated by the little lock icon in the top right-hand corner), probably because flaming and trolling or general abuse. The same goes for Michael Moore's page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore
Snopes, in my quick search came up as liberally biased believe it or not. But I went with it because I searched some controversial issues on the site, and concluded that they were pretty much on par with what I thought was accurate. I mentioned it just because I felt obligated to mention there was speculation.
Best thing I do when checking any site, is look up something I know 100% about and see their take on it.