Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 2 February, 2006 - 23:47.
I agree. It's good to read things with a healthy perspective of "that is how they view it", "I wonder how much overlap with the truth its presentation of the facts is...". As far as Wikipedia goes and as far as I'm aware, it's an open encyclopedia so you get whatever people put in. It's only form of correction is others writing corrections to whatever was posted. Like Healths view of progress (up and down) so goes the quality of articles presented. Some you find fairly well rounded and accurate. Some abysmal. Look out when wading in its waters...
I agree. It's good to read things with a healthy perspective of "that is how they view it", "I wonder how much overlap with the truth its presentation of the facts is...". As far as Wikipedia goes and as far as I'm aware, it's an open encyclopedia so you get whatever people put in. It's only form of correction is others writing corrections to whatever was posted. Like Healths view of progress (up and down) so goes the quality of articles presented. Some you find fairly well rounded and accurate. Some abysmal. Look out when wading in its waters...