Co-Founder Seeks to Start Over
|Wikipedia Cited as Lacking
Today's world is capable of sharing vast amounts of information at a rapid pace via the Internet. However, the accuracy of this information can be a serious question. Websites posing as genuine sources of knowledge or news are often serving their own hidden agenda under the guise of legitimacy. Nowhere is this more problematic than with the questionable process and ethics of Wikipedia.
At first glance, Wikipedia appears above board. Its clever name is a play on the word encyclopedia, implying an unimpeachable and unbiased compilation of information. But like other salacious websites, Wikipedia is a haphazard collection of opinions subjectively presented as fact. It uses mostly unidentified people to submit ideas on any topic of their choosing, and rather than utilize professional fact checking, Wikipedia posts information and relies on corroboration from other random Internet posters.
In fact, in its quest to make a profit and gain notoriety, Wikipedia appeases special interest influences by selectively presenting information that corresponds with their motivations. Wikipedia 'editors' spin these ideas to create a skewed version of reality that drastically varies on a day to day basis. To maintain this monopoly on misinformation, Wikipedia unilaterally determines when it has 'enough' content and "locks" it so that no other additional information - even powerful alternatives that prove inaccuracy - is considered to contest the fallacious version.
Wikipedia's lack of reliability is widely
reported. Empirical facts as irrefutable as the life or death
status of well known celebrities has been falsely
reported on this site, subsequently corrected only through intense
media exposure. Unfortunately, most victims of this carelessness and
inaccuracy do not have the backing of major media outlets to force
Wikipedia into presenting completely truthful information. Although
instances of its gross inaccuracy have been recently well documented by
legitimate journalistic sources like USA
Today and Sports Illustrated, Wikipedia continues to pontificate
wildly about whatever subject it chooses. One thing is certain: the views
expressed by the biased editing of Wikepdia do not necessarily include
accurate information about the world in general. For additional evidence
of Wikipedia's lack of validity as a legitimate source of information, see
discussion of an ABC News expose at http://www.conservativeedge.com/default.aspx?id=readarticle&AID=3481.