Archer Wrote:Wikipedia FTW
I like it but a lot of the stuff on there is bias or just pure crap.
I hear this a lot, but do you have actual concrete examples? The joy of Wikipedia is that while crap can go on quickly . . . it can also get removed very quickly. Unlike printed texts, in which if nonsense slips past the editors it will remain for a very, very long time.
It's an excellent starting point for research into any encyclopedia-worthy topic. Of course it's necessary to check that references are appropriate and foolish to take an article as gospel - but the same is true for every other secondary source.
Yes. I do have concrete examples.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism</a><!-- m -->
This isn't meant to be funny.
It's not crap; it's a legitimately coined word and no different from, say, an article on "google" as a verb. Or "truthiness," or "Festivus." (I notice they took down the page on Zappadan, though; it must not be famous enough.) Even if they never make it into the dictionary, words coined in the wild are part of popular culture and sufficiently noteworthy ones do belong on Wikipedia.
It's also not biased. It could have been another politician - and in fact Slate Magazine now prints "Bidenisms" instead - but no matter whose mouth they come out of, statements like those are still absurd on their face. If you look at the related articles list, you'll find Yogi Berra, who's remembered fondly but certainly said some absurd things in his time. It's also not Wikipedia's place to ignore or downplay cultural phenomena arising from the mocking or criticism of a public figure, regardless of the basis for that activity; it's Wikipedia's job to describe noteworthy and well-known phenomena in the world.
The examples may go on a bit long, and that's a problem we've noticed with other Wikipedia pages. It seems to strike when fanboys/fangirls decide to maintain an article for a subject that doesn't have enough popular visibility to attract stricter editors. (The pages for C.J. Cherryh's Foreigner series and Kushiel's Dart by Jacqueline Carey are two notable offenders we've found, at least as of the dates we last checked them.) They might as well have linked to Slate's collection of Bushisms, or some similar resource, and called it a day.
The better known and/or more scientific the subject, however, the more accurate Wikipedia tends to be, and therefore I'll agree that it's a good place to start if one is interested in learning.