.HOME
[Wikipedia: Not the Only Thing Full of Shit]
September 27th, 2007Wikipedia: Not the Only Thing Full of Shit
Reading this article got me to thinking.
I don’t want to say that everything on Wikipedia is false, as a matter of fact I think it’s generally a pretty decent resource. If you’re especially hesitant you can skip to the bottom and just read the information on the resources. However, I like a point made in the afore-linked article:
the idea that books are right by virtue of being books and Wikipedia might be wrong because anyone can edit it — that just may be the biggest load of crap I’ve ever heard. In fact, it is a truly dangerous load of crap, because it asserts that the writing of books is different than the act of editing a Wikipedia article; that creating books is some mystical act conducted by holy creatures whose ideas are never spurious, unsupported or just plain crazy.
And that’s what I’d like to talk about right now. Are people looking to books as more credible now because of the “tainted information on the internet”? Or are people realizing that since the internet has tainted information, maybe so do books? I’ve always been a big fan of questioning what people tell me in books, and, I guess, questioning their authority. Not in a McHotTopic/ Gothy McFaggot sort of way, but in a not-falling-for-people’s-guesses sort of way.
What do y’all think?
 |
Loading ...
