Response to 'Criticisms of Wikipedia'
I agree that Wikipedia is not as accurate or as high quality as scientific research or reports made by experienced people in their field. The whole idea that content is actually relied on the wisdom of the masses reflect that there is actually no one overseeing the entire wiki post. This makes wiki very susceptible to false content, fake information etc. Hence I believe that's why our teachers, professors and tutors told us to NEVER NEVER NEVER cite Wiki in our assignments.
Wiki has a clause in its editing agreements that the written work has to be as much as possible 'free from bias'. For issues such as science and technology, the issues can be quite clear-cut without having to express it from the opinion from the writer. (Its a general assumption, eg. if u type 'fibre optic cables', the content is technical and written free without the writer's opinions)
But what about issues like history? Events that happened in history means many different things to different people. Take for example 'Adolf Hitler', how is a writer suppose to write about him without writing about his/her perceptions? Are we going to deem the killing of >6 million Jews an atrocity or just part of his plan for ethnic cleansing? We can't do it on Wiki, as it doesnt allow us to form our opinions about the topic.
Hence, this should be a topic that would be best written outside of Wiki as, well, we all have different perspective about it.
Wiki is good for general, basic information but not as a place to cite as its accuracy is questionable. Moreover, for issues like The Arts, I would prefer to read viewpoints rather than the basic facts. This will allow me to form my own conclusion which is good critical-thinking hahahhaha!
