Wikipedia is not that bad

There were recent allegations that information provided by Wikipedia cannot be trusted for its accuracy. What actually happened is this : Some guy’s(read the previous link to know which guy) biography at wikipeida showed that he was involved in the assasination of John.F.Kenndy and his brother and that page stayed uncorrected in Wikipedia for months. As i told you in my earlier post, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone as they like. But you cant write your own story and say it is the life history of the great warriror Achilles. A group of people called Administrators keep checking the pages for changes and see whethear the changes improve upon the previous post or not. But somehow this guy escaped from their(Wikipedia’s) Admin group and the article went unnoticed. The guy who was alleged as involved in assasination felt bad about it. So he wrote an article in USA Today about it. Then people all over the internet started saying “this issue rises doubts about the accuracy of information provided by Wikipeida”.

Now to the rescue of Wikipedia came the famous science magazine Nature. They compared Wikipedia with Britanica and concluded that Wikipedia is comparable to Britanica as far as the Science articles are concerned. Wikipedia’s founder quickly supported this by saying “most of our users are more interested in Science and Technology, POP culture
and Socail Life”.

What ever the story may be, the articles at Wikipedia were compiled by many individual volunteers and they have woked hard to get to this stage. No system is completely failsafe. Errors creep in. That doenst mean that we should completely abandon the Online Free Enclyclopedia but it would be better to recheck the information before relying on it, after all we are not paying for it.