Wikipedia: Only As Full Of Shit As You Are, Professor

 One of my favorite science publications, New Scientist, drops the ball in a big way in this article on Wikipedia. I say that because NS gives us an uncharacteristically credulous account of the online user-edited encyclopedia’s attempts to be taken seriously. It opens with a paragraph that reeks of the worst pseudoscientific dramababble:

Wikipedia’s entry on Albert Einstein looks good. Covering each phase of the physicist’s life, from childhood to death, it tells readers about his politics, religion and science. Honours named after him and books and plays about his life are listed. But there is one snag: there is no way to tell whether the information is true.

I can almost smell the Chupacabra’s spoor. In fact, I am so horrified by a so-called science journal asserting that there is “no way” to tell whether information of this sort is true that I just might want to add some spoor of my own, right on top of the latest issue of New Scientist.

The implicit assumption, here and in all discussions of Wikipedia…

Read more at Techyum.

Image via Wikipedia.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: