Sharyl Attkisson, hardly a middle of the road reporter. Has spent most of her working life selling the 'American message' from the right wing media megalith CBS.

Wishing you all a very happy Australia Day
tomorrow. May we re-commit to make our future
better for us all in this country. Enjoy your
day with your family and friends.

We are having a traditional Aussie Day, celebrating with all thing Oz. I have already removed the Xmas reindeer antlers from the back windows of the Toyota and replaced them with a pair of dinky di Aussie flags I got from the Chinese guy at the $2 shop, Hong has a big range of Aussie stuff down at 'Hot Dollar'. Giving out the presey's is fun, I got a floppy hat that says '100% Aussie'gee how do the Bangladshies make em' so cheap? I wanted a pair of those Aussie thongs with the Aussie flag on em, and a hat with corks all round. Hong at the $2 shop has got all that neat Aussie stuff! Oh well, just have to settle for a VB and a Vegemite sandwich while I watch a rerun of 'Barry McKenzie'.

Going to the Yabun Festival tomorrow. A celebration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.

onthebeach, after all this time do you still not know how Wikipedia works?

It doesn't speculate. It documents significant claims made elsewhere. Where those claims are dubious, it says so and includes links to the counterclaims. Highlighting its own potential shortcomings is a sign of honesty, not inaccuracy.

Though Wikipedia's crowdsourced nature inevitably results in errors, it is also good for correcting errors in most circumstances. The vulnerability to astroturfing is a serious problem, but AIUI that problem is being addressed, and anyway it really only applies where misinformation serves someone's commercial interest.

The suspected biological warfare of 1789 (not 1768) is indeed very dubious, but the same can't be said for the other incidents on that list.

Aidan,

Do cite Wikipedia 'information' if you will but don't expect your teacher or lecturer to accept it.

I have already proved it to be unreliable.

Did you have occasion to watch that linked video? See here,

<Check what this reliable academic and expert says about Wikipedia as a (dubious) source of information and a tool of astroturfing lobbyists for secondary gain of course.

"Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 24 January 2016 2:43:52 PM>

onthebeach,

I found Wikipedia to be a great tool for uni. But you wouldn't normally cite Wikipedia itself; instead you'd go to the pages it references and cite those.

Of course Wikipedia is not 100% accurate. Nor is the rest of the internet. Nor is print. But Wikipedia does at least have error checking procedures, and is one of the more reliable sites despite its reputation.

Yes I saw the video, and I acknowledged "The vulnerability to astroturfing is a serious problem". But do you really think Wikipedia are ignoring the problem? And that for the vast majority of pages, people wouldn't have a financial incentive to post misinformation.