UNDER CONSTRUCTION

It is believed by some that  Wikipedia is the future of knowledge distribution. Albeit, NOT at all the be all and end all! This they fear MUST be clearly pointed out!

However, they see Wikipedia as a “first point of contact” for source information. There is no doubt in their mind about this as they believe Wikipedia supplies far more information on any given subject than any other Encyclopaedia or other source of information out their. This is simply a case of “more often than not.”

Wikipedia, they assert, is a fantastic and ever growing resource for a “first point of contact” regarding substantial information on any subject. However, as with any source for information, it is never infallible and on this note they would always say that you should verify everything with secondary sources! They stress that they believe this to be the case with anything, not only Wikipedia. In fact, they go as far as to say that you should do your own independent investigations into subjects of a personal interest and for basically furthering your own knowledge in any subject.

A recent "Gadget Show" also compared Wikipedia with the chargeable and subscription based Britannica equivalent, and came to a similar conclusion. They pointed out that Wikipedia was more likely to produce more information about current world people and information (the example they gave was that a search for Brad Pitt would only reveal a reference to Pitt the Elder in Britannica), so it could be argued that Wikipedia provides more information - albeit potentially biased or even just plain incorrect. It did however qualify this by saying that Wikipedia was an excellent first source of information, but that any information should be checked with a second reference source. I tend to agree - as long as you realise this when using it.“

They believe that Wikipedia works if verifiable references are given for information contained in its articles.

Down with the elite wisdom disinformation dissemination machine!