Page is a not externally linkable
hutcheson - 6:20 pm on Feb 24, 2007 (gmt 0)
This is why I don't like wiki, the "content" is VERY unreliable. Um, and that makes wiki different from what human source exactly how? You can easily find people with academic degrees who are idiots (in their chosen field) but maintain impeccable academic credentials. Encarta is just a bad joke of course, but it's not at all hard to find errors in Britannica. Don't even get me started on TV network news or the big Urban News. And all the other human authorities are equally constrained. If you don't know of a way to verify the information you get, then ... just figure it might as well be wrong if it isn't already, and live in a fantasy world.... and that's true of ALL the information you get from EVERYWHERE. But for people who do have ways of verifying information, Wikipedia is often very good at giving a citation trail -- another way in which it's different from auto-authoritative sites. [edited by: hutcheson at 6:40 pm (utc) on Feb. 24, 2007]
>There is no way to verify that the information on any given wiki page is even *true* or not. If nobody edits an article, it can be total fairy-tale fiction and still get passed off as "fact"...