We've had a lot of people citing wikipedia as a source for Brawl information, usually from the Japanese wiki.
This is a public service reminder why NOT to trust wikipedia.
1) The majority of articles can be edited by anyone, and many people like to spam it. While there are many legitimate posters on wikipedia, they may not always catch these attacks/errors, and are not always necessarily trustworthy.
2) As stated above, even a respected wikipedian may not be an epitome of knowledge on subjects they are commenting on. There are several famous wikipedians were revealed to have been lying about their fields of expertise and had little actual knowledge on the topics they had been commenting on.
3) The 'majority rule' system of wikipedia is also a weakness. Instead of guaranteeing the truth, this only guarantees the 'lowest common denominator'. That is, the most widely spread story will be the one most posted. If the majority of wikipedians thought that the US had been fighting commies during the American Revolution, then that is what the article on the American Revolution would say.
4) Citing sources says nothing to the veracity of the sources. I could make an article on humourism and simply cite medievel texts that support it if I chose - nevermind the fact that those sources are wrong.
When rated for accuracy on the traditional school scale, wikipedia received, on average, a D- from professionals in various fields who looked at their relevant topics on their. This is why wikipedia is not allowed as a source for school reports.
For the upside of wikipedia, I must say it is a whole lot of fun to go on and read random things on there.
This is a public service reminder why NOT to trust wikipedia.
1) The majority of articles can be edited by anyone, and many people like to spam it. While there are many legitimate posters on wikipedia, they may not always catch these attacks/errors, and are not always necessarily trustworthy.
2) As stated above, even a respected wikipedian may not be an epitome of knowledge on subjects they are commenting on. There are several famous wikipedians were revealed to have been lying about their fields of expertise and had little actual knowledge on the topics they had been commenting on.
3) The 'majority rule' system of wikipedia is also a weakness. Instead of guaranteeing the truth, this only guarantees the 'lowest common denominator'. That is, the most widely spread story will be the one most posted. If the majority of wikipedians thought that the US had been fighting commies during the American Revolution, then that is what the article on the American Revolution would say.
4) Citing sources says nothing to the veracity of the sources. I could make an article on humourism and simply cite medievel texts that support it if I chose - nevermind the fact that those sources are wrong.
When rated for accuracy on the traditional school scale, wikipedia received, on average, a D- from professionals in various fields who looked at their relevant topics on their. This is why wikipedia is not allowed as a source for school reports.
For the upside of wikipedia, I must say it is a whole lot of fun to go on and read random things on there.