mahjongg wrote:In the end all information is created by fallible humans, at least Wikipedia has a mechanism in place to correct fallacies, but believe what you want, perhaps some "authoritative" sources are more to your liking?
I'm sure that all Wikipedia contributors are just trying to help their fellow humans, but there's a lot of chaff out there. I was doing some research a couple of weeks ago in order to resolve a thorny DSP problem and while reading a particular W.P. entry (can't remember what exactly, but it was related to stats and pattern recognition) I realised that whole paragraphs had been lifted from a paper that I'd just read - and without citation
. Not a big deal, but the person that posted the article didn't have the faintest idea about the subject, so instead of posting a real-world example he / she just reproduced a stack of partial differential equations, with no context whatsoever.
What a waste of everybody's time.
Sure, we could all dedicate the rest of our lives to editing this garbage, but I can't help feeling that our time would be better spent attacking the guilty parties with cattle prods instead, while shouting "You may think you're helping, but you're not..." Zap.
Capttalists the world over are trying to think of ways of monetarising the free web. How's this for an idea...
Time is not an infinite resource. We are each allotted a finite number of heartbeats and they are precious
. If somebody wastes our time with erroneous information, spam or duff product then they have to pay. I haven't figured out the finer detail yet, but everyone will have some kind of online account.
I'll stop now, before I end up owing everyone money...