[derleth]

Absolutely none of this is true and reflects your bias more than anything else. Anyone with a passing familiarity with Wikipedia would know it to be false. Your lack of knowledge is apparent and your opinions are of no value.

[samegreatsleeve]

Absolutely none of your comment is true; it reflects an unexamined bias and a complete unfamiliarity with the depths of wikipedia, how wikipedia stands up to alternatives, and the nature of the shitty content on wikipedia. Your opinion is completely worthless and it's safe to say you're an uneducated ideologue.

[derleth]

The fact you're the only one here making your extreme claims is strong evidence in my favor unless you think you're that much better than everyone else here.

[samegreatsleeve]

Really. You're really going to use that logical fallacy to support the religion for which you are a true believer.

The delicious irony of your hatred is that your point is so poorly argued, you must be a wikipedia editor.

I'm actually a pretty accomplished wikipedia editor with several original article credits. The articles are standing today. I have barnstars and everything. But I actually submit my articles to Encyclopedia Britannica now, because I realized the truth about wikipedia. It's just a really low quality content farm that can't be trusted on anything.

What is the point of getting your knowledge from unreliable losers? All the biggest wikipedia editors are no-life losers with zero respect in any real intellectual community. They are divorced from the community of experts and receive nothing but scorn from them.

What's the point of reading an encyclopedia written by people who you can't rely on? Getting 80% of the content right is not an achievement--every content farm on the internet does the same--from eHow to expertsexchange.

Wikipedia is just an ideology and volunteer driven low quality content farm. Due to Wikipedia's overpowering marketing/SEO, when Wikipedia writes an article on a topic, that Wikipedia article will now have higher visibility than the original information source that it scraped and now cites. The Wikipedia article will steal traffic from the original source.

The internet would be so much better without content farms. And Wikipedia is the worst of the worst.

When I feel like writing an encyclopedia article, I send it now to Encyclopedia Britannica. They've edited my writing and incorporated parts into their high quality encyclopedia.

By the way, that study that said that wikipedia was just as good as Britannica was complete bullshit--as flawed as your informal fallacy that you just shat out right above this comment.

[derleth]

So you expect us to believe you without citation? And you haven't given any specific examples for anything in all your verbiage. Frankly you sound like you're trolling.

[samegreatsleeve]

Haha, I was thinking the same about you. If you're a troll I give you credit: you know exactly how to impersonate the stupidity of a Wikipedia true believer. Asking for citations when they're not relevant. Ironic use of logical fallacies. Substance-free ideological bandwagoning.