Do you think Wikipedia is contributing to the downfall of civilization?

Question

Let me preface by saying I LOOOOOVE me some WIKI, but isn't it turning us into a world of people who only THINK they know everything? I mean, let's face it, it ain't exactly accurate most of the time.

Answer 1

Maybe but its range of articles is way ahead any other published ressources find on the market! It cover so much things, including things that our leaders don`t want us to know, that it promote freedom in a way never seen before! Yes, it may lack acccuracy, but in this world, everything is right in functions with his perspective! In Asia, the world works another way, and solutions are seen differently, also our history is different, as they have seen it from a different view! So all in all, it contribute to increase knowledge availability way over any University or Academic establishments can do or whithold! Its benefices, go way beyond any defects he may have!

If this site is shutdown for a reason or another, it will mean that it disturbed very powerful peoples, and it will means that it does his job well, (or was doing his job well), and will mark the time that you will need to move out from this country if you want to remain free!

Answer 2

Wikipedia is right most of the time... however they do sometimes disagree with me, in which case they are wrong.

Any collection of opinions based upon some evidence is a valuable source for critical thinkers & opposing opinions are really far more valuable than those that agree with me.  I, like most in the sciences, do love a well thought out, objective opinion.  Chuckle, I don't like it when they ignore the obvious though.

To answer the question... NO.  If you are threatened by something like Wikipedia, then you are in a bad situation in some country on the verge of despotism.

Answer 3

Mankind has a lot to do with that. Especially when they are in the government or religious fields.

Answer 4

If anything.. to pool together resources based on the motivating factors is a MODEL for the scientific method.

most of the data that's stored on the internet.. if it's not serving a highly obviously functional purpose it's serving to demean all that it stands for in favor of making itself seem more "down to earth".

wikipedia fills a gap in the concept of a stable capitalistic society and is sadly the peak of a joint merging or silencing of issues based on what is involved with grappling with those issues on a day to day basis for simply existing day to day with how those truths threaten or could potentially threaten the simple psychological complacency of living in a developing culture.

Answer 5

Yahoo Answers isn't very accurate either.... AAAAHHH run for your lives!

Answer 6

I just can say Wikipedia is terrific. I wanted to participate in editing some articles, but it was just too complicated, like a super maze, that I could n't do it.

Answer 7

Maybe not the world but the internet. It's hard to research anything on the web anymore since Wikipedia became popular.

Answer 8

Like any text, it requires skill to be able to read it critically. Lots of its major articles are actually very good, although it's pretty patchy on a lot of minor topics.

One strength is that it usually provides plenty of links, which make it easy to check facts. These links usually have other links and so on. The "talk" pages are useful to get a feel for the different points of view on controversial topics.

It's often a good starting point for exploring a topic. And it's so damned easy to use!

Answer 9

Do you feel threatened by people being able to look up information?  What are you a teacher or something.  It is very accurate most of the time when it comes to science which is all I really care about.

Answer 10

Wikipedia is an awesome resource but you are correct, it is not always accurate.  The problem is that it is complied by a bunch of people who think they know everything and, wait, kinda like here.  There is no real oversight or fact checking and charged issues get edited and re-edited all the time.  Peer review is great but you have to be selective about your peers.

Answer 11

There have been people who think they know everything since we were able to think.  Socrates talked about how many of them there were back in the day.  I think wikipedia is useful as what it is.  I use it either for entertainment or if I just need to know enough about a subject to get a reference.  Anyone who knows how it works should also know enough to only trust it so far.

Answer 12

Wikipedia is useful when there are references to support the text. Try to read Wiki with some degree of critical thinking. Wiki is not contributing to the downfall of civilization.

By the way, exactly what percent of Wikipedia is not "exactly accurate most of the time."

Answer 13

I think that global warming is doing a lot more to destroy us than Wikipedia. Wikipedia, however influential, cannot melt part of a continent or cause an ice age. Besides, most inaccurate things are posted by stoners and say, for instance "George Washington is a bajillion years old and invented ice cream". Hahaha, that'll fool EVERYONE.

Answer 14

I think learning from Yahoo! Answers is much more misleading than Wikipedia.

Answer 15

Western civilization or American? from where would this civilization topple down to..?

anyways, Britannica comes at a price.. Encarta comes at a price.. even freedom comes at a price.. (lol) Wikipedia doesnt..

Wikipedia is the new tv, really..

Answer 16

I love it too. There is a sacrifice in gathering such a huge amount of information from so many sources. How could they possibly verify every source? The trade off is a massive database with tons of info about a bunch of obscure topics and items.

Answer 17

.....but history books are also fraught with misinformation. One has to take Wikipedia for exactly what it is; a  place for people who think they know everything to prove to themselves that they do indeed know everything.

Answer 18

I suspect overpopulation is a greater danger to civilization than Wikipedia.