My problem with wikipedia is that all the information is being stored in the same website. Since it appears first when you search for anything, it becomes the only way to fact check things for people. Since most won’t scroll past wikipedia and just trust it, the information posted there becomes the objective truth. If someone in control of the site wishes to make modifications, and does them properly, he can alter truth.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m just a paranoid guy on the Internet, I do believe that wikipedia is doing a lot of good. It’s, as you said, a healthy and complete hub of information online. Like the library of Alexandria. It just scares me that there is only one hub like this. There should be equally big libraries of information, to allow contrast.
Eh, it’s got no commercial control and is generally ran democratically. Probably a King Charles III situation where it’s a good system for now and the foreseeable future but not something that might be a good idea long term
My problem with wikipedia is that all the information is being stored in the same website. Since it appears first when you search for anything, it becomes the only way to fact check things for people. Since most won’t scroll past wikipedia and just trust it, the information posted there becomes the objective truth. If someone in control of the site wishes to make modifications, and does them properly, he can alter truth.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m just a paranoid guy on the Internet, I do believe that wikipedia is doing a lot of good. It’s, as you said, a healthy and complete hub of information online. Like the library of Alexandria. It just scares me that there is only one hub like this. There should be equally big libraries of information, to allow contrast.
Eh, it’s got no commercial control and is generally ran democratically. Probably a King Charles III situation where it’s a good system for now and the foreseeable future but not something that might be a good idea long term