Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information
edit
I agree with all of those who says that Wikipedia should not be considered as a reliable source of information, both within the academic community and for the exchange of information for general purposes. The ones who support their claims saying “But I read it on Wikipedia” are putting themselves in a subordinate position. The information you get on Wikipedia should be checked, not only by the Wikipedias in other languages, but also by the primary sources of information.
As a support of the opinion presented here, I recommend the following articles:
- The real bias in Wikipedia [1],
- Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism [2] - мислење на Larry Sanger.
Why am I active on Wikipedia?
edit
To help in its development in the areas for which I am interested in.
Without you Tyre and Sidon
life has been going on here for thousand years
and it will continue.
We the people are like grass-
trampled on, drying up, suffocating, dying.
Only the land remains.
We the people are like ants-
crushed, exterminated and yet still proliferating.
Once the expedition to the Indus set off from here,
who would have thought it?
Along the Via Egnatia, Cicero walked into exile in Salonica.
Near Drama
Caesar's shade appeared to Brutus
under the tent
on the eve of the decisive battle.
Then there were 15 martyrs
made Saints in Tiberiopolis.
Naum had a monastery
built at the springs of the white lake.
This land gave life to King Marko, too.
And yet,
has it not been brought low many a time?
What was the price of maturity?
Everything is foretold-
we are to leave,
the land remains.
Blaže Koneski
