Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: phranque
To be honest wikipedia gets great rankings but i dont think it deserves
the justice it gains.
Perhaps the aim is to give a little bit of knowledge about a lot of topics but if you want some real juicy information you going to have to dig alot harder than that.
Well, the problem is that there is little verifiable content
Does anyone find the references footnotes, or absence of them, useful in determining the validity of the data? I see many Wiki's with "this claim requires validation" (paraph.) or a footnote to a resource. If you actually use the footnotes and follow the links in them, it gives you a good idea as to the reliability.
I have found that the "requires validation" marker is often put up on any statement that might come from a ideological perspective that someone doesn't agree with or has an axe to grind about. It isn't necessarily an indicator that someone is policing the article to ensure its objectivity. There are people who appear to do nothing all day but troll Wikipedia for ideas that offend their worldview.
I have also noticed a trend in print in the past few years to shove in footnotes everywhere in order to make the writing seem more authoritative, but these references almost always lead to bogus sources, like articles the author himself has written or to articles in pop magazines and other trash. It seems that the same force is at work in Wikipedia now--references for the sake of appearing authoritative rather than in order to provide any actual in-depth or authoritative information.
My biggest complaint about wiki, their site search is useless if you have a spelling mistake.