Why your Research Link to Wikipedia has been Edited there since You linked it to Your Post|A Word about using Wikipedia as a Source for your Research or Arguments|Forum|Forum: Apocalypse & Armageddon

Why your Research Link to Wikipedia has been Edited there since You linked it to Your Post

We all use Wikipedia links (and footnotes) to help make our Research & Arguments in eMails and Forums and all sorts of websites' comment sections.

And in the main, Wikipedia is a good place to use as a "Source" link to get other people who might not be real familiar with your subject a fair-to-good starting point where, if they are so inclined, they can then go on to check out actual scholarly or expert materials on these subjects.

But as the video (link below) demonstrates, Wikipedia is an "Open Source" or "Crowd Source" eEncyclopedia which may be subject to erroneous "edits" sometimes by people who nefariously want to make some Entry be seen in a more positive light than say the controversy of a particular Congressman, Corporate Executive, Priest or Preacher who got caught with his pants down around his ankles holding a smoking gun. They seem to be a bit touchy about being caught that way and since they are usually sociopathic bastards in the first place feel no obligation to society (or voters) to not edit that sort of thing out of their Wikipedia entries and even add bogus Neo-Con Revisionist History padding entries that make themselves seem more accomplished than they ever actually were.

Sometimes it is their staffers making "conflict of interest" entries about their bosses, and even professional PR geeks who are hired by Corporate Clients to whitewash Wikipedia entries of any of their negative background (of say environmental or human rights abuses and fines).

And, of course, some Wikipedia entries are just amateur posts by someone who has a particular interest in some subject that no authority has gotten around to expounding in greater detail yet. But better an amateur Wikipedia entry to give your Research a starting point than none at all. Who cares if a groupie for Los del Rio made their entry on Wikipedia. We just want to look Los del Rio up quickly when some Stand-up Comic on TV uses their name in a joke and we don't get it because we've long since forgotten about the Macarena dance (wasn't that like a Salsa version of the Hand Jive line dance):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....l_R%C3%ADo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_jive

And Wikipedia does a fair job when I write something like: There is no story of Lucifer and the Fallen Angels in the Bible. And since nobody either in or out of church actually read the Bible as a work of literature (which actually is no longer than reading The Lord Of The Rings, btw), they are usually surprised to find this out and at least the Wikipedia entry on "Lucifer" lets them know the Biblical tale in Isaiah 14 was about the king of Babylon and not even any allegory hinting at Satan or The Devil. So a quick Wikipedia reference link can save time from having to write all this out over and over and over again for people who grew up hearing the Lucifer Myth from Authority figures who heard it from their Authority figures Ad infinitum (which is how a lot of Bullshit seems to get spread around):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

After all, this is just a Forum. You can always check Wikipedia links out for yourself with more scholarly sources or go to the library like your Grandparents did. I just happen to have collected my own library over these past 60,000 years (and spent $60,000 building it), which is what you have to do if you want to check out source material and have it at your finger tips when you want to look something up like right now.

But, to explain the problems with Wikipedia not being a definitive authority more visually is:

The Wikipedia Mystery On Capitol Hill: