It's a good place to track down more sources and general information, but the writers (as most writers do) have their own views that tend to leak through.
Wikipedia collects groups of enthusiasts around particular subjects, and it becomes kind of a "club." This is not much of a problem with subjects like "knitting," but controversial subjects get kind of bent out of shape. As I mentioned, the links on the articles can be very useful, as well as straight numerical information (if you check it). History subjects can be very flexible, and tend to stick to a party line. Which party depends on the subject.
One small example: I recently looked up a Wiki page on crime and immigration statistics in Europe, and found out that some people are trying to remove the page entirely.
The Ministry of Truth in 1984 had the difficult task of reworking histories written on paper. Airbrushing articles on the web are a piece of cake, and even major news organizations do it.
Be careful out there.
Off Topic » in reply to What is your opinion on the validity of Snopes.com? n/t
It's a lot like Wikipedia.
The whole thread (21 posts)
- What is your opinion on the validity of Snopes.com? n/t (n/t)
- Accurate and thorough
- Now, I'm just speculating here...
- Fair
- Like most information sources based on facts and reality, it has a liberal bias...
- You can always cross check Snopes if you want.
- It's a lot like Wikipedia.
- Every time I need something debunked, that's where I go.