Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The self-esteem of a bad writer with a fragile ego may be damaged by people always correcting horrible prose, redundancies, bad grammar and spelling. This is especially true if proofreaders not only correct but upbraid the poor writers, who can perhaps offer expert knowledge or change subjective statements despite their mediocre use of English.
The best Wikipedia entries are well researched with extensive citations". [93] Some academic journals do refer to Wikipedia articles, but are not elevating it to the same level as traditional references. For instance, Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in the journal Science.
An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views and inappropriate self-referencing).
Wikipedia attracts highly intelligent, articulate people (except for repeat vandals) with some time on their hands. Moreover, some experts contribute to the articles. Over time, the huge amount of solid work done by hobbyists and experts alike will inevitably build upon itself, therefore greatly improving Wikipedia's body of information.
John Seigenthaler, an American journalist, was the subject of a defamatory Wikipedia hoax article in May 2005. The hoax raised questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content. Since the launch of Wikipedia in 2001, it has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, which allows any user to edit its encyclopedic pages, has led to ...
The best candy (It's Candy Corn)(No it's obviously licorice, duh)(nuh uh, its Skittles, get it right) An article where everything consists solely of this link; An article talking about how cool Uncyclopedia is (we don't really wanna know). Nonexistent shows or movies.
Wikipedia is best viewed as an engaged community that uses a large and growing number of regulatory mechanisms to manage a huge set of proposed edits ... To take the specific case of Wikipedia, the Seigenthaler/Kennedy debacle catalyzed both soul-searching and new controls to address the problems exposed, and the controls included, inter alia ...
Instead, Wikipedia became the battleground for angry people and the playpen of carefree writers. The people who remained to re-write Wikipedia were focused in 2 groups: intense people who treat Wikipedia as a battleground and spend time changing many articles to emphasize their opinions; or