- The good
- For major subjects, Wikipedia treats things in an egalitarian way.
- For example, when western academia focuses on bigotry, it usually thinks of racism or homosexual rights. Wikipedia points out that other forms of discrimination exist and can be just as bad (Template:Discrimination sidebar).
- For example, media reporting about the Trayvon Martin case was sensationalist and full of angry people on TV. Only by coming to Wikipedia could I get a true layout of what facts are known to the public.
- Wikipedia is a great source for notable topics with little internet presence. (e.g., Native American tribes outside of the US; most sources are written in Spanish or Portuguese, and of these most are written in literature not online).
- The bad
- Our mathematical and non-biological scientific articles are terrible. They are written in technobabble that only people already familiar with the subject will understand.
- The ugly
- Other
- Wikipedia has errors in it. This is unavoidable: as long as literature exists, errors will exist in it. The key is that Wikipedia's safeguards against errors are as good as anyone's out there (a massive peer-review, if you will, in the form of "anyone can edit").
|