Exchange Traded Thoughts

What I like the most about Wikipedia is that it does not pretend to be objective. New terms are defined through consensus and are initiated and written by the users. In many cases, the symposium yields rich and up-to-date results. In other cases it does not. Popular or controversial terms receive better attention, and a healthy discussion is constantly maintained over their definitions. In these cases, there’s high probabilty that the result will be well balanced. Wikipedia has many sub-wikis, among them “Wikibooks“. Here’s a quotation from the book “relationships, the authors of the essay mentioned all their resources: 

“Churches are good for meeting marriage partners (8%), and poor for meeting short-term sex partners (1%). (This contradicts another dating advice book, which says that women in church singles clubs want sex “like bunnies”. This may apply only to certain churches. (The book didn’t specify where to find the best sects.)”

I think the quotation demonstrates the objectiveness issue. Nevertheless, some people percieve information on the web as true, regardless of many important criteria. Research has confirmed it. Microsoft apparently sees it as a serious business, so it offered a blogger money in returns for editing one of wikipedia’s articles. Microsoft’s spokesman said that Wikipedia forced the company’s hand by refusing to correct information Microsoft says is inaccurate, after Wikipedia’s editors  refused to approve an article editing initiated by Microsoft’s people.