Hurray for Wikipedia

[Joejojoba111]

Well, some aspects it's not good information. I know of cases where a true expert in a field edits an article to make it correct, like the composition of metals in some thing. And then someoen edits it back. And after correcting it twice, they say 'F this' and leave it incorrect.

So I second the notion that it's not a good primary source. But it could be something you read to get you pointed in the direction of other good sources. I wouldn't put it as a reference, that's for sure.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I found it interesting that although Wikipedia mentions the exact text of the 2nd Amendment and states that the meaning is being debated, it fails to mention that both a report of the Senate and an even more extensive study by the D.O.J. both concluded that the RKBA is an individual right.

I guess I should jump in an edit the entry, but I don't know if I'm a good enough writer. Anyone feel up to the task? I have copies of both reports, I can provide you with cites.

 

[zahc]

Agree that Wiki often comes across as pro-gun, because the facts simply support our side.

 

[Joejojoba111]

But the problem is that people could easily slant it extremely anti-liberty (gun) simply be deleting your stuff 1 more time than you are willing to delete theirs.

It doesn't matter how smart, how expert, how right you are. It comes down to how often you are willing to 'correct' an article, and how long you can keep doing it.

For that reason, even though the current content may be agreeable, I can't accept it. It is fundamentally flawed, and I don't want to be a hypocrite who only supports it when it agrees with them.

 

[lysander]

What is wrong with allowing any "dolt" to edit or add information? If something is clearly wrong...those with an interest in accurate information on a particular topic will correct it. Open source information is a good thing...

For every article on Wikipedia there is a little group of dedicated "nerds" out there in the world that love the subject matter...that care about it deeply...that will defend the truth of it.

As a secondary springboard to deeper research Wikipedia is outstanding. You can't base a master's thesis on the articles within...but that doesn't mean the information isn't mostly balanced and accurate.