Tru Principle said:
This is not an attack, but.. can you give us examples?
well wikipedia can be edited by anyone and has been over and over. a few months ago, wikipedia had to stop the editing of the wiki pages of people in politics and even ban certain members ip address and all computer access from capitol hill computers, because it was discovered that politicians were having their staff go on the site and write lies about people in other political parties, writing things on their own wiki pages that made them (the politician) look better.
i noticed a huge change to president clintons page. earlier this year it had a near complete list of all the scandals through out his adminstration with details. it took up a good portion of the page. the last time i checked, which was about a month ago or two, it was shortened to like 2 sentences.
wikipedia has gotten a lot of criticism just because anyone can write whatever they want and it never gets fact checked by their staff and if it does it can take months before it even gets check out.
just last year, a man named john seigenthaler was told by a friend of his that his wikipage says he may have killed jfk. of course he really did not kill jfk but it was edited in his page as a joke by a man named brian chase. it made national headlines and the chase was arrested i think but the charges were dropped by seigenthaler
there are plenty of other examples out there. wikipedia has its pros and cons and i use it often. but if i use it for academic purposes i usually fact check anything i get off it from other crediable sources
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm here is a site that is sort of a wikipedia.org watch page, it has more details of hoaxes and biased editing by users. mostly criticism, but it's fair imo.
