Buster;241904]Yes and what About Wiki ?
Since Wikipedia is in reality a vast and changing document the answers can only be general. The information contained in
Wikipedia, like all information, depends on the knowledge or the ability of the person giving the information. Where they don't have specific knowledge of a particular subject they rely on the accuracy of their sources of information, which may be limited or, in questions of opinion, may give a somewhat biased view, (as everyone tends to do) based on the conclusions they have reached from their own viewpoint and/or study.
Another problem with Wikipedia is that it is 'consensus driven' in that the policy regarding answers relating to opinion requires a consensus view to be put. This may be the correct view, or as we all know, '
the majority is not always right.' The majority once thought the earth was the center of the universe. Thus we end up with pooled ignorance.
On matters of opinion, such as religious or moral questions, there must be due recognition that any answer will inevitably reflect either the bias of the writer of the article or the current consensus view or what the author or authors think is the current consensus view. All of these could be wrong, either in whole or in part, but will naturally be well-presented as fact and with supporting argumentation, which may or may not be spurious, if one does not have the knowledge to critique it.
In other words, as with anything, learn to check your facts, no matter how well argued.
Bookmarks