Should Wikipedia Post a BS Disclaimer [[IM]]?
Stating that the articles are not peer reviewed science and should not be relied on for engineering and scientific purposes.
I recoment the internationally recognized [[IM]] symbol for Intellectual Masturbation.
Answers:
yes. Wikipedia is completely biased when it comes to political and social issues.
I happen to be a big fan of Wikipedia. But I agree. You can't rely on what it says 100%. But it is a good place to start (since it provides external links and links to sources...)
Did you here that corporations like Exxon/Mobile and Pepsi change their site.
Exxon replaced post on the Valdez spill, that it wasn't that bad
Sure, why not?
People use Wiki like it's facts, just like they use this part of YA like it's professional legal opinions and advice.
They should be reminded that most of what's posted here and on Wikipedia is posted from average schmos that don't know very much and (like you) refuse to spell-check or check their grammar, and might even insert something gross and irrelevant.
Yes I have to agree, many subjects are biased and have a spin put on them.. It is handy, but not always factual.
Who relies on wikipedia?
right on! I second the vote!
I think Wikipedia is very interesting and is sometimes useful, but it is claiming to be a encyclopedia. If you rely on it for important information, just remember, you get what you pay for.
C'mon- Wiki is encyclopedia by common consent and committee...
BS is rampant, as is opinion and untruth.
But- it does make a fun read: who knows- some of it might actually be right.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: