Wikipedia – A Reliable Source?

After what I discovered on the net today, I am rejoicing that I have never quoted Wikipedia.. We attempt to be scrupulous with the information in our posts and prefer to link websites where we get the information. When opinions are stated we attempt to be equally careful. We even check the links within the links and are ever watchful for misinformation.

The very nature of Wikipedia makes it a candidate for scrutiny. From a democratic point of view, they allow readers to become contributors. If you have any degree of expertise on a subject you may edit it yourself. What they don’t reveal is that after the changes in an entry are made, they are subject to further review by in house editors. This supposedly protects against biased entries and faulty data. As a reader, you are not protected from any bias on the part of the editor.

To demonstrate this possibility, I suggest you check on this link. After you read it, you will never look at Wikipedia in the same light again. At least I know I won’t. Since I have some pretty obvious opinions about the gloom and doomers of the “warming” movement this piece probably resonated to a greater degree (pun intended.) The loss is then to the credibility of Wickipedia and to those who would quote it thinking there was a measure of consistent fairness and lack of bias.

I have observed in writing nearly 200 essays in the last nine months that maintaining fairness can be a chore. It is especially so when discussing religion and politics. That’s why we don’t do it at the “holiday” dinner table with family and friends. To tinker with resource material is a violation of an otherwise “safe haven” and will now require investigation of the other 3,000,000 references on Google on each subject. It’s more cumbersome but maintaining the integrity of the blog is worth it.

Considering how the media and the wire services corrupt the “news” I should probably not have been so naïve as to give Wikipedia the trust I did. I apologize because I really am old enough to know better. Therefore, consider yourself warned.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon