Profs give Wikipedia passing marks
Chicago Tribune, IL - 13 minutes ago
By Michael Booth. Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, is a multilingual, million-entry fount of knowledge from Britney to Byzantium that has lately become ...

I finally got arond to looking at this one. It's bogus. Essentially, the reporter sent one article each out to five local college professors for critiques, and each article was on an extremely important subject - e.g., evolution, Bill Clinton, global warming, China, and Islam. Four of them said the articles were pretty good; one (the guy who got "China") didn't.

Presumably it would never occur to this so-called "journalist" to send these professors articles that don't receive near-constant attention by some of the best people Wikipedia has working on the site, would it? In other words, something slightly more representative of the vast majority of content...?

Certainly not!

I thought the same thing, Somey. Or, heaven forfend, a RANDOM sample of pages?! Or, even better, a sample that exceeds maybe FIVE?!?!

Greg

Global warming is a subject that attracts a lot of cranks and probably special interest groups; we have had occasion to comment on it before. It is reassuring to know that the Wikipedia article is not completely up the spout.

I think you missed the back-handed-compliment that “it looks like it was written by the Clinton Library” means it looks like it was written by an source affiliated with Clinton.

Actually, this looks like it’s an insult to the Clinton Library. The Clinton Library wrote in a short one-page biography:

In 1998, his relationship with a young White House intern resulted in the President’s impeachment by the House of Representatives. A trial in the Senate found the President not guilty of the charges brought against him. President Clinton apologized for his conduct and vowed to keep working as hard as he could for the American people. As a result, Bill Clinton left office with historically high approval ratings for the job he had done as the 42nd President of the United States.

http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/bios-WJC.html

which is also on the official white house page

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

while the much longer Wikipedia article only has the same length and blames the Republicans and media.

On January 21, 1998, a controversy was raised by the media and prominent Republicans[29] over Clinton's relationship with a young White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, resulting in the Lewinsky scandal. In a lame duck session after the 1998 elections, the Republican-controlled House voted to impeach Clinton for matters relating to the scandal. The Republican-controlled Senate then voted to acquit Clinton the following year, and he remained in office to complete his term.[30]