Ryan F.

It is user-created and un-scholarly, any article on anything controversial is typically either biased or incomprehensible because sentences contradict each other, or are otherwise so watered down that it is not worth the effort. "Just checking for a simple facts" is not an excuse to use Wikipedia, there is no way to confirm with all the edits whether the content is genuine or has been skewered over time by biased users.

Wikipedia is a catastrophe for public knowledge precisely because it allows anyone to pretend to be an expert on a topic, when they likely are not and the person is unknown and their motives are not known. Wikipedia sounds great for an idea, but expertise is required for controversial topics.

All you have to do now is go to Google Scholar to find scholarly work, the popularity of Wikipedia these days can only be ascribed to the dominance of Wikipedia on the internet as a first search result and laziness or lack of awareness by people to find professional, scholarly books that are accessible via sites like Google Scholar.

Waste of time rant forum run by and for internet trolls shouting insults and profanities. I tried it a few times, then left it. In my short time there, I saw intelligent people arrive and then quickly leave because they just get shouted down by morons who think that yelling and acting tough gives their arguments merit. Most of the popular posts are tabloid-level idiotic. At least the nonsense from National Inquirer is professional looking, this is unprofessional. If I could give this website zero stars I would, it is garbage.

Fantastic website to hear from major figures on topics. I especially like the summaries of topics given by leading natural scientists, psychologists, and political scientists in their fields. It is very helpful in getting bright people an introduction into various ideas that they can further investigate. This is my number 1 favourite website on the internet.