Indeedle, but just because something reaches a certain level of consensus on wikipedia, that doesn’t make it true either – yet that seems to be a common belief. The idea that passing information past the critical eyes of a thousand internet editors will somehow iron out all the inaccuracies and bias is not a realistic one. It always ends up being majority rule, and the majority of wikipedia users haven’t yet managed to grasp the concept of maintaining a neutral persective.
It doesn’t matter whose fault it is – the point is, if wikipedia didn’t exist, this wouldn’t happen. It’s not only the fault of researchers anyway, but also people who constantly link to wikipedia, and only wikipedia, when discussing a subject online, as though no other source is worth consulting.
“The Britannica has become the first and last word on everything”?? When has anyone ever made any similar claim? Even if they did, it would hardly be comparable when you consider the accessibility of a traditional encyclopaedia vs. the ubiquitous wikipedia.
The CIA Factbook maybe, but that’s mainly statistical information and is thoroughly checked, without the ability to be edited discreetly and anonymously. If it was suddenly put online and open to anyone’s edits it would quickly become a joke, yet wikipedia has somehow gathered credibility simply through repeated use. Besides, there aren’t too many ways you can colour statistics, and for most statistics no-one would have any interest in colouring them anyway.
It’s a valid criticism of the web. People should consult books more. But, this is a society of remote controls and dishwashers.