I noticed. Slowly but surely Wikipedia is becoming the no. 1 reference for philosophy, instead of respectable sites like Stanford Philosophy, Britannica, and even Encarta

Well in teory the philosopher has to study and ponder about ever information and form of thought he comes across, so unreliable information is not necessarly bad for a philosopher, and I think its better than sites trying to sell stuff to you

I haven't encountered that for a long time, maybe 2002 was the last time I saw inapproriate ads.

Maybe it's got something to do with geographical location

Yea, it's an improvement. Wikipedia takes a lot of flack for being inaccurate, but it's still a pretty good source for information, in my experience. The problems tend to show up when there is bias in the more politically-charged entries.

Yea, they've definitely been 'promoted' in the hierarchy of Search Results.

I'm not too keen on Wiki; I do use it and believe it has its purpose. I also believe that if you want the "quick-and-easy, sound-bite-world, give-me-the-condensed-version-of-life" view on anything, it's the place to go.

It's convenience is alluring (and this actually could be said about much of the Web). It gives us a quick view of a subject, saturated with links; Lots of information with no perspective. I know I sound negative on this, but I honestly do think it serves a fine purpose. But like all things, one has to "use the right tool for the right job".

If you want to get a quick answer/quick info then Wiki is a fine place to go. I think though, that if you want depth, perspective and understanding then you'll need to expend some effort to actually read something longer than 500 words.

Thanks

I agree with Victor in the respects that I share his implied caution about wiki. Wiki, though it is becoming a primary source for information online is replacing in many respects legitimate academic websites like Stanford, etc. I think this puts a lot of trust in people to deliver accurate information. Since wiki can change on a whim, anybody can insert anything and when they do say anything, they leave out a lot of relevant information.

Case in point, take the ancient Athenian Apollodoros. On wiki, there are around two or three separate entries for the same guy. This is not counting the different Apollodoros' throughout history, just the Apollodoros we want to look at.

Apollodorus of Acharnae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First off, the spelling of the name is wrong. At some point, somebody phonetically spelled the name instead of looking it up in the Oxford classical dictionary. Then the name itself is misleading because it refers to his Athenian tribe "archanae" rather than his accepted title as "the son of Pasion." The article does not account for the fact that the speeches have been found to have been of Apollodoros' own hand rather than a speech attributed to Demosthenes. Paison's wife did not marry his freed slave Phormion, she was willed to him (a loophole in Athenian laws as Athenians could not marry any outside of citizenship) Also, Apollodoros performed the trierarchy once, because Athenian law did not allow a single citizen to be burdened twice with the same role as financier. They don't even mention the other five speeches of Apollodoros, only Against Neaira and Against Phormion.

Just from the small article on Wiki, there are a number of problems, both in regards to misinformation and in regards to information which, though partly correct, is not complete. Now sites like Oxford or Stanford will not make that mistake because they take correct information very seriously. But the dang thing about those sites is, is that they are impossible to read for most people. Personally, I don't care for them because they assume you know all about the topic to begin with. Wiki on the other hand has a very nice layout with bolded topics. How could you not be drawn to that type of site that offers information so accessibly. But Khethil has a very good point about wiki being convenient for quick answers, but not in depth ones. The Apollodoros article would be decent for a quick overview, but not a completely correct academic identification. But even still, Wiki definitely has its uses.

Reliable information?
Do we all assume that those with big names are the reliable ones?
After all, we all know that power corrupts.

As wiki becomes more dominant, I think it gets less reliable. Ironically, the more people depend on it, the less dependable it becomes.

There is no short cut to accurate information, and there is no formula that can always give correct results in this regard. There is no substitute for critical analysis.

-forever a sceptic-

Off course we shouldnt believe what doesnt makes sense for us, but this doesnt means there isnt more or less reliable information... if someone tells you a wrong fact, that may lead you to take wrong conclusions... we are vulnerable then receiving information about something we dont understand anything about, or that is supposed to be a new fact. For example: If a biologist makes a experience nobody made before, and tells the results with a small deviation to another who trusts on him, the other biologist will probally believe.