Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 30th May 2009 19:17 UTC
Legal Even though we make fun of Wikipedia, and even though any serious scientific piece shouldn't cite Wikipedia, fact remains that the community-created and maintained encyclopaedia has turned into an impressive database of knowledge. Even though I don't think you should trust it blindly, it's usually an excellent starting point for information, especially when used in a casual setting. Still, its open nature is also a threat to Wikipedia, this week exemplified by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee banning Scientology from editing Wikipedia pages.
Permalink for comment 366278
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by mikemikemike
by Bernhard on Sun 31st May 2009 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mikemikemike"
Member since:

Well some Christian brands comes with a pretty heavy subscription pricing scheme (for something that is open source) and they have pretty dubious SLA:s.

Christianity in and of itself is free. Some christians support their organization with money, because it needs to rent rooms and pay for expenses like electricity, water and even organizational employees.
I'm not saying there are no scammers out there, just that not everyone is a scammer.

But BTT: Scientology shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia entries about the organization. The Vatican shouldn't be allowed to alter entries about Catholicism, the same should apply to Microsoft, the aforementioned "Christian Brands", the Dalai Lama, Siemens, Sony, Apple or anyone with a financial interest in editing stories other people tell about them.

Reply Parent Score: 2