...the Wikipedia is okie dokie (sometimes)!

I am a rabid user of Wikipedia.  Want to find out some random factiod?  CTRL + T, en.wikipedia.org, type it in, and tada!  Knowledge!

But like any resource we use, it must be evaluated and parsed.  I find Wikipedia to be generally reliable.  The only issues I hear of completely erroneous information are usually pages of political figures or celebrities.


I do contribute to the site, although I don't have an account.  Every once in a while, I'll have some information that needs to be added.  Like yesterday, I was thumbing through a first edition I have of Lewis Mumford's City Development (1945), and decided to read a little more about old Lewie...
 

Turns out, the bibliography (note the Incomplete - to be Updated tag) was missing a few books that were listed in the front of my book.  So I added them with the note that I had a book with the listing.

Red arrow for ease of location!

See, that wasn't hard!

For a challenge, let's look at the edits and discussion around Mitt Romney's page.  Should be entertaining!

No surprises here!  Seems a lot of the edits parsing information rather than fixing random stuff posted by yahoos.  Combing through the edit archives, it seems to be a lot of back-and-forth discussion between Wasted Time R and Jasonnewyork.

But one thing I've noticed is that it's difficult to read the "talk" between contributors.  You really can't get a grip on the flow of changes to the page.

Also, I'm surprised that there wasn't more "crap" posted on here.  Then again, I believe Wikipedia did lock Romney's page for a while.