Comment: Honestly, I wouldn't be so radical yet.

(See in situ)


Cyril's picture

Honestly, I wouldn't be so radical yet.

Honestly, I wouldn't be so radical yet.

I agree that as with any other sources, one has to be prudent. Or very prudent. But if I think of a few topics about which I had gathered a lot of information outside of WP (when not hands on experience), I can say you can still find fairly objective content on there.

It really depends on the topics at hands. The more factual and many more outgoing links to other records on the WWW are a good indicator of the overall objectivity, beyond the history of disputes on the page. Usually, you'll have to make your average out of the conflicts they will have with each other, then.

Some hard sciences are very well served by WP, others much less. It is very variable.

As for "softer" sciences (history, sociology, politics, economics, etc) well, granted: the greatest care is expected from the reader's side.

Just a guess, but if I had to bet, I'd say WP is overall more objective than snopes.com for instance, which I find more and more suspect/partisan as time goes. Or downright dumbing down at times. I stopped using that one long ago.

Just IMO.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius