We lost, Wikipedia wins Options

[Emperor]

There is an entire generation of young adults out there who believes a bunch of stuff they read in Wikipedia.

They think Wikipedian, that combative, know-it-all, don't believe it unless they read it online, partisan, can't-be-reasoned-with attitude.

Wikipedia critics tried to get a message out but were overwhelmed by crazies, many of them Wikipedians themselves intentionally muddying the waters.

It's a decade later. The people who remember how to think are dying off. Game over.

Jimbo made a few bucks. Hopefully he feels bad a little. After a decade of actively serving hardcore pornography to children in schools he should be in jail.

[everyking]

Wikipedia has eliminated critical thought? I don't see the connection. It's true that people tend to accept written sources rather uncritically, but that's true whether you're talking about an internet encyclopedia or a traditional encyclopedia--or a newspaper, for that matter. If anything, engagement in the creation of the product, or at least awareness of the way it is produced, ought to encourage more critical evaluation of written sources, a greater perception of fallibility. Are people more likely to critically evaluate Wikipedia, or Britannica?

Anyway, Wikipedia has only "won" because it has provided a product that is vital for the age we live in--a really big, very up-to-date, easily accessible, free internet encyclopedia. Nobody has been able to compete, because nothing else satisfies the demand nearly as well. The Wikipedia model is the one that works.

[Emperor]

Wikipedia has eliminated critical thought? I don't see the connection. It's true that people tend to accept written sources rather uncritically, but that's true whether you're talking about an internet encyclopedia or a traditional encyclopedia--or a newspaper, for that matter. If anything, engagement in the creation of the product, or at least awareness of the way it is produced, ought to encourage more critical evaluation of written sources, a greater perception of fallibility. Are people more likely to critically evaluate Wikipedia, or Britannica?

Anyway, Wikipedia has only "won" because it has provided a product that is vital for the age we live in--a really big, very up-to-date, easily accessible, free internet encyclopedia. Nobody has been able to compete, because nothing else satisfies the demand nearly as well. The Wikipedia model is the one that works.

It works as maybe an entertainment curiosity, but for anything important there are way better ways to get an accurate picture of the world. Too many errors, hoaxes, distortions, perverts etc. People trust the internet ridiculously. I had an argument with some guy about something, he wouldn't believe me because the web page said something different. I had written the page myself!

The greater perception of fallibility has led to not trusting anything or anyone, which simply isn't true. You need to trust in order to get anything done. Not trusting leads to crazy decisions based in internet-know-it-all dork logic, not reason. I don't really know how to explain this to you. If you don't know it by now you never will.

[dtobias]

I had an argument with some guy about something, he wouldn't believe me because the web page said something different. I had written the page myself!

Then, basically, you were arguing with yourself.