A Student of History

August 7, 2006

Wicked History, again!

Filed under: What is History? — John Maass @ 9:41 pm

About a week ago, I posted on Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia that has come under some fire recently, for a number of issues including false entries, and inaccuracies as well.  The previous post is here. Now, just in time, The Onion has a spoof of Wikipedia’s troubles, including this:

Wikipedia, the online, reader-edited encyclopedia, honored the 750th anniversary of American independence on July 25 with a special featured section on its main page Tuesday.  “It would have been a major oversight to ignore this portentous anniversary,” said Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, whose site now boasts over 4,300,000 articles in multiple languages, over one-quarter of which are in English, including 11,000 concerning popular toys of the 1980s alone. “At 750 years, the U.S. is by far the world’s oldest surviving democracy, and is certainly deserving of our recognition,” Wales said. “According to our database, that’s 212 years older than the Eiffel Tower, 347 years older than the earliest-known woolly-mammoth fossil, and a full 493 years older than the microwave oven.”

The complete article is here.


  1. […] smacked again Filed under: The Academy — John Maass @ 10:34 am Back in August I posted on some troubles Wikipedia has had, mainly regarding their accuracy.  Well, actually lack of it.  […]

    Pingback by Wikipedia smacked again « A Student of History — February 21, 2007 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  2. Wikipedia IS NOT a valid source, case closed! They are 1) edited by ANY and EVERYone! 2) They pick-and-choose what they put on their site, so even if an article is PERFECT, with NO errors, backed-up with VALID sources, they can still take it down if it is a company that competes with another company THEY like! I put up an article, PERFECTLY done with valid sources, but since the company competes with a company that already has a page on Wikipedia, they took it off, claiming my article’s company’s corporate information isn’t a valid source, yet, THIER article of a company that competes with mine, they claim the coporate information from the company IS a valid source! How can a company’s corporate information be BOTH valid, AND NOT VALID? See, THIS is why you CAN NOT trust their information!

    Comment by John Frits — May 6, 2008 @ 4:15 pm | Reply

  3. Mr. Frits–yes, we know. That is what the posting said. Thanks for adding more information. JM

    Comment by John Maass — May 9, 2008 @ 10:46 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: