Boy Oh Boycott
Wikipedia is arguably the world’s most popular encyclopedia. It has thousands of pages about all sorts of things, and best of all, anyone can edit these pages! It’s the perfect mix of old-school encyclopedias and Web 2.0 thinking.
There is a dark side to this open-content encyclopedia, however, and not many people know about it. I have wondered this myself, as I mindlessly browsed the various pages on the site, reading up on random topics from cities to historical events to musicians. This dark side has nothing to do with brainwashing; no, the brainwashing should be left to the experts (I’m looking at you, Starbucks and McDonald’s).
Wikipedia is attempting to completely replace what most of have grown to love and hate throughout the years: paper encyclopedias. It calls itself a free online encyclopedia, but what they fail to say is that they want to replace the large volumes that we remember from our excursions to the school library as children. I for one miss taking the time to go to the library, find the volume that has the subject, flip through the multiple pages, and scroll through the tiny text to find what I was looking for. The site also calls itself “The Free Encyclopedia”. Any encyclopedia can be free, you simply have to drive to the library and find the monstrous stack of books located in the bowels of the library.
Some say that Wikipedia is the best thing since sliced bread, since it’s so easy to find the information you need. Well, I dunno about you, but I’m quite fond of sliced bread and Wikipedia is nowhere near it. Besides, there are other things that are better than Wikipedia AND sliced bread, like TV dinners.
Wikipedia has been in the news recently because of the fact that anyone can edit it. Employees of various corporations have been accused of editing those corporations’ articles to make the companies look good. Well, I for one think that this should be allowed. After all, they spend so much time trying to make the company look good in TV, print, and other online sources that we should help them just this once.
Another reason why it’s been in the news is because schools and colleges have discouraged and even outlawed the use of it in reports and papers. They say it’s because the material may not be accurate since anyone can edit. I completely agree. After all, searching for the same thing on Google is definitely going to give a more reliable source, even if it is below the Wikipedia article page on the search results.
Also, Wikipedia needs to be boycotted because of the name. I mean, c’mon, Wikipedia? Is that the best they can do?
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Search
Categories
- Computer Companies (2)
- Food/Drink Companies (2)
- Political Special (1)
- Random Special (1)
- Retail Companies (1)
- Site-Related (4)
- Web Companies (3)
Archives
Links
Humor Blogs & Sites
Misc. Sites
Wzzt Network
They thing about editing Wikipedia, though, is that it doesn’t automatically go up. It has to be reviewed. Well, last time I checked it was like that.
Personally, I always prefer the good ol’ paper encyclopedias. For school papers, of course. For online work, I always use Wikipedia, because of how easy it is to Cite, and link to your information.
I think boycotting wikipedia won’t cause any damage to this site. Instead, you can provide true facts to make it worth than worst…
I agree, Wikipedia should be boycotted… especially by Google.
Google should be ashamed of itself. Google professes to value facts and the free sharing of knowledge, yet refuses to block the Wikipedia website and its consistently erroneous articles and libelous biographies.
Google, if it has a fraction of the integrity it claims to, should immediately block all Wikipedia pages from its search results.
I whole heartedly agree with the widening campaign to end use of Wikipedia for its lack of authoritativeness and its failure to meet its own professed ideal of an encyclopedia that is richer and more accurate for its democratic “openness.”
Wikipedia fails in every measure. It is filled with inaccuracies, and when these are discovered–typically the case since Google serves up Wikipedia at the top of virtually every search–those with accurate, factual knowledge only encounter roadblocks when attempting to amend Wikipedia articles. Changes that are good and correct are regularly discarded in favor of nonsense.
Clearly, to everyone except Google, an obstinate few rather than an enlightened many are in charge of policing Wikipedia, and their goal is NOT the maintenance of a fact-filled and comprehensive encyclopedia but rather the control of beliefs, propaganda, and information deemed antithetical to their interests. Because these would-be “thought hackers” have no other purpose, career, or business, they can spend all their time pretending to be academics, shaping their pet project into their vision, while the vast majority of the people who look up items on Wikipedia spend their time working and producing in the real world, haplessly gobbling up the atrocious inaccuracies that fill the pages of Wikipedia.
It has been humorously noted that Wikipedia articles are not composed and then posted, they are simply composted.
Wikipedia is NOT authoritative. Google should not trust ANY Wikipedia article if it intends to provide search results to those who are in any way serious about completing an accurate homework assignment, or a valid report, or a factual novel premise, or a creditable scholarly paper.
Again, Google, if it has a fraction of the integrity it claims to, should immediately block all Wikipedia pages from its search results.