Wikipedia is definitely worth using — as I said, it has plenty of arguments on its side. But it is alarming that there is no governing authority on content. Factual information can disputed, or just tagged as disputable. I’m more than happy to abide by it, but when a friend was compiling an article for Wikipedia, he found too many people offering arbitrary criticism without concern for the information presented. That’s not just anecdotal. Type in controversial issues, and see for yourself. (Try “Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004.”)
Just because there are already so many skewed information
resources, doesn’t mean that Wikipedia can’t take on a few methods
of reform — the CNET article presented a widely respected
alternative, that of Linus Torvalds. And we can all appreciate what
happens when wiki goes bad, such as Daily Kos’s dKosopedia, which
at least has the courtesy of noting
its bias on the front page.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?