| Viewing Single Post From: What are Your Pet Peeves ? | |
|---|---|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 17. June 2009, 14:59 |
|
Wikipedia,  in case people had not noticed.  For general chit chat it is like a tabloid red top paper such as the sun or the mirror. May bring something to your attention, feature an amusing story or even promote a worthy cause (as the Sun does from time to time) My objection to its use in meaningful debate and discusion is the fact that it lacks editorial control and validation.
If you tap into Papal Authority for example and subscribe you can enter what ever you wish and until or unless someone launches a legal objection you can enter any opinion or info you like. My younger sister for example is listed as being a few years younger than she is, no harm you may say and most girls fib about their age but what if it is something more serious like a quote from a particular book offered in defence of a particular point of view without reference to the context in which the original article or book was written. If for example you click Redemptor Hominis you do not come to a copy of Redemptor Hominis but a summery, who edited the summery. Wikipedia is a good sauce of gossip and bar room conversation but it should not be used as a source of information when contributing to a conversation or discussion that is meant to expand or improve the mind, correct error or promote church teaching. I get very peeved when people cite Wikipedia and even more annoyed when school kids show me homework articles researched through the accursed website, apparently with their teacher’s full approval       
|
 |
|
| What are Your Pet Peeves ? · The Car Park | |
2:17 AM Nov 25