Again, I'm not sure from whence this hatred for Wikipedia emanates, but it's rarely wrong on issue of public interest. Sure, you could write an article about your mate Bob and it could all be totally fraudulent, but that's because your mate Bob isn't of interest to anyone except you and he; it's never going to looked at and hence it'll remain unchallenged. Still, that's presuming that one of the many bots doesn't flag it for moderation.SirDeadly said:
Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge. Unlike any single book, issues generally have well sourced and well presented arguments for both sides of a debate. Books have the author's perspective and nothing more. Yet most would trust a book over Wikipedia? Maybe it's the inbuilt consumer capitalist drive to be wary of anything that's free, a cognitive dissonance between the idea of free things as dubious and wikipedia as knowledgeable leading to the conclusion that the less ingrained of the two ideas should be rejected?