• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can we all agree about wikipedia?

HiddenDjinn

HiddenDjinn

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
It seems that many here use wikipedia as a reference. I personally consider wikipedia to be biased, and inaccurate. If we can agree that wikipedia may be unreliable, due to its nature(a community-edited project), can we find an online encyclopedia to agree upon?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Every source has some bias.
As soon as you find some reference you think is beyond doubt, then it will bite you.
Wikipedia is convenient, relatively accurate, free, voluminous, & verifiable (links to sources).
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
The mighty wiki is the golden cornucopia of human knowledge.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
The Great Wiki is less biased because it's community-driven. With its community the online, educated, global world, I don't see how it could be otherwise.

But then, I'm biased.
 
Last edited:
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
yosi said:
It seems that many here use wikipedia as a reference. I personally consider wikipedia to be biased, and inaccurate. If we can agree that wikipedia may be unreliable, due to its nature(a community-edited project), can we find an online encyclopedia to agree upon?
Click to expand...

Not really. Wikipedia has its faults, and I fully hope for competing encyclopedias to develop (Citizendium is a good example). But I don't find Wikipedia particularly bad as encyclopedias go.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
LuisDantas said:
Not really. Wikipedia has its faults, and I fully hope for competing encyclopedias to develop (Citizendium is a good example). But I don't find Wikipedia particularly bad as encyclopedias go.
Click to expand...
Citizendium has a loooooooooooong way to go.
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Most of the bias I've seen involving Wikipedia, is bias against it on the part of people who have read a couple of articles on it they disagreed with. I guess bias also means "not agreeing with my bias."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top