As a history and philosophy major, I have to go through a battery of names and concepts in class in order to understand the more advanced concepts. I don’t think I would be able to complete half the background work that I do without Wikipedia, which turned ten today.
But there is a political point to be made here too:
Wikipedia is borne out of a Hayekian concept of gathering knowledge to delineate and synthesize the most efficient definitions possible. Decentralizing works, kids. (Or at least saves substantial time from sifting through Websters.)
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Too bad leftists censor it and are the only ones who are allowed to make updates, in general. Unless you are writing about some basic thing like names and dates, you can't trust the information. No credible high school (or college) accepts it as a source.
Great idea – until the Leftists showed up to control it.
Nah, they allow for links to really good sources so you can always cite that. They also give coverage of basic concepts, it helps a lot.
It's quite helpful for anything really basic and non-controversial. Anything with any controversy behind it at all has quite a decent chance of being controlled by one of the many administrator-sanctioned cabals. I really like it for basic research; however, don't cite it.
After reading a very detailed account of how they maintained (and maybe still do) their global warming information through the years that was chilling, I've taken what they have to say & who they cite with a grain of salt if it's an area that is open to interpretation like history, biography, etc. Heck what I am saying, that was supposed to be science!
On everything politically controversial, they're Wickedpedia.