4 ms·

I think you're missing perhaps the most important value of Wikipedia to the consumer - the content has been subjected to peer-review and open criticism, and the

I think you're missing perhaps the most important value of Wikipedia to the consumer - the content has been subjected to peer-review and open criticism, and then jointly edited by many people with different perspectives. This causes me (as the consumer) to have a high degree of confidence in the information. This will not be true for any blog post, or even any book. A blog post (like a SO answer) can be higher or lower in search results, but the content of that blog post is still just one person's (or one small group's) perspective.

leephillips 6y ago
That’s not what “peer review” means. And what you list as advantages, the joint editing by many people, are also disadvantages. I’m far more interested in reading something with an identifiable author, who is responsible for the words, than the product of a crowd, where any semblance of an individual voice has been suffocated. And you may feel confident in the information, but don’t forget that I can make any Wikipedia article say anything that I want. Sure, it will get fixed. But maybe the version that you read still contained my misinformation.