And I've seen some bizarre stuff on this thread... like the below circular reasoning.
Quote:
Yes, you can. So can I. And guess what ? It all works out. It's not the definitive source on anything. Like a good encyclopedia, it is a good source on nearly everything.
I've seen bizarre stuff on Wikipedia. Come back the next day -- and it's all fixed. Like I said, it all works out.
|
Let's look at the logic of this, and never mind that some 10 or more pages ago I told you to get some better sources. Wikipedia is a source with zip editorial oversight and anybody can edit it for pretty nearly any reason they can come up with. Pages get hacked routinely, and far more often than are blatantly obvious. How can you (or anyone) possibly say that the next day that it's "fixed" unless you approach it with a predetermined agenda and it just says what you want it to say? Equating Wikipedia with a primary source is a symptom of an advanced case of armchair expertise. Using Wikipedia to cast an initial screen is fine to get outlines on an issue, but if the user doesn't follow it up with a primary source to verify its veracity, the information isn't worth a thing.