Wikipedia must be the one of the most innovative websites of all time. We, Wikipedians, by collaborating together are creating a wonderful resource of information, free and accessible to everyone in their own language. By continually evolving and advancing, Wikipedia is becoming one of the premier resources of information on earth. This is why I feel irritated and disappointed by unjust and undeserved criticsm pointed into the direction of Wikipedia when concerning the precision and correctness of the project.
Of course, everything has its flaws and indeed not everything on Wikipedia is true and correct. But is this not the case for every resource made by mankind? Does this not exist for academic research papers and hardcopy encyclopedias as well? Of course it does. Readers of any kind of source must always ask themselves if the source is authentic and genuine. Assessing and interpreting the correctness of information is always demanded. Any untruth, each falsehood and every form of vandalism on Wikipedia are countered and repaired by many other (good-willing) Wikipedians who spend a lot of their own precious time in improving Wikipedia to near perfectness. Please believe me, dear critics and pessimists, we are speaking about a very, very small number of factual mistakes here and please be assured that at least 99.9 percent of the information on Wikipedia is correct.
For me, Wikipedia, is the example of next-generation internet and a forerunner of how peoples and individuals will gather their efforts and unite in sharing kwnowledge and educating the world. I am proud to part of this goal and make a small but valuable contribution to this project.
The Beagle
| :-]
|
This user is polite and expects others to act accordingly.
|
 | This user is addicted to travel. |
 | This user would like to wish you a happy Europe Day. |
| la | Hic usor latine loquitur atque contribuere potest. |
