Wikipedia is everywhere. Everyone uses it for papers, for "research" (if this term can ever be compatible with the word "wiki"), for writting essays, for finding facts about mathematics or travelling, for learning things about distant places or for clarifying details about philosophy. Wikipedia started as a small-time project but it seems it is here to stay! However most of us do not clearly understand that there is Evil under the sun...
The main points against Wikipedia are written here in a "wiki" way:
1. Wikipedia has
created more problems than it solved. It has made students and people in general lazy. It is easy to go to the first link Google search provides you. Who cares about going to the second needless to say the third search result? How would you stand a future world where everyone is based on Wiki to write what they write? (bacause this is certainly where we are heading at)
2. Wikipedia is be definition
"quick and dirty" and not an encyclopedia. How many good papers have YOU written quicly? No matter how much we like fast food, it is not only worse than normal food but also very bad for health.
Convenience is not what we should search of! The easy path is most certainly the wrong one! Quality of information should be our primary goal!
3. The fact that its articles are
not signed by specific persons and that it is promoted by its owners (administrators? who knows...) as an "encyclopedia" is an evil trick by intent. Imagine if I would name "Harmonia Philosophica" portal as the "Best online encyclopedia on philosophy matters"... Would you trust me because I told you so? Writting anonymously is not something for Wikipedia, it is something against it. Someone feels much less responsible for what he or she writes if he does it anonymously. How much would you trust someone telling you something if that specific someone would not even reveal his name to you?
4. The
myth that Wikipedia is "free" is more than wrong. What do you mean "free"? Free of what? Free of dogmatism? I can asure you it is not (see below). Free of prejudice? How can you tell? How can you judge that? Because they told you so?
Do you often trust an anonymous person who admits that he wrote something quick (wiki) on a subject? If you are searching for a matter that you are knowledgable of then most certainly you will skip Wikipedia. If on the other hand are searching for a theme you know nothing about, you will have trusted your knowledge on some people you do not know and on one specific set of agenda they are bound to. Why would you do that?
Someone might argue that you will search more if you are really interested in the matter. Sure. Do that! That is the point of this article! I myself have used Wikipedia sometimes, but this was only to take a quick and dirty look at a matter. Not to base the essence of my research on it! However the ugly reality is that 9 out of 10 people who find the information they want in Wikipedia do not go elsewhere to verify them...
And anyway, why is it an argument for Wikipedia the "if you want you can go elsewhere" ?!?
Learning something they way someone else wants you to learn it, can be more costly than you can imagine.
Oh and by the way, please donate something to the "free" Wikipedia...
You see free does not mean "free of charge". It means "free of responsibility"...
 |
| Go to WikiBias.com portal for examples of Wikipedia bias |
5.
Wikipedia is biased on many subjects. Especially on philosophy subjects on which I have some interest (I am not anyone important of course, but I could surely be an administrator of Wikipedia....if you know what I mean) I have found many discrepancies or serious ommisions, which I summarize at "
Philosophy and the Wikipedia inquisition" article. I am sure you will find similar subjects on which Wikipedia is biased if you devote some time in searching matters you know of. Find more biased articles of Wikipedia
here (
WikiBias.com is a portal full of such examples).
6.
Wikipedia is written by anyone and this is a drawback! Knowledge is by definition not democratic in nature! There are some people who have knowledge on some matters and they share it (or at least should share it) with others. An "ancyclopedia" written "by the people for the people" is really a scary thing. What do "people" know? Do the majority of users able to create a Wikipedia editor account about the Theory of Relativity? Of course someone might argue that only people who know will write on such subjects. But then we are back where we started from! Experts are again the ones we should rely upon, not a "freely edited by anyone" encyclopedia! But in this case the "experts" are anonymous... (and they are heavily deleting unwanted entries based on their own "expertise")
Some universities have already banned Wikipedia use! [
1]
Say no to Wikipedia!
Search with a "-wikipedia" term every time you search for something in the net!
Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2013-04-08]: In a discovery suggesting that odors may have a far more important role in life than previously believed, scientists have found that heart, blood, lung and other cells in the body have the same receptors for sensing odors that exist in the nose. It opens the door to questions about whether the heart, for instance, "smells" that fresh-brewed cup of coffee or cinnamon bun, according to the research leader, who spoke in New Orleans on April 7 at the 245th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society. [source: web news]
![_64182761_biobot_thumb[2]](http://lh5.ggpht.com/-z0Hdq-CxOOU/UKaScAhWBBI/AAAAAAAAHGU/sS39le6sJr4/s1600-h/_64182761_biobot_thumb%25255B2%25255D%25255B3%25255D.jpg "_64182761_biobot_thumb[2]")
