In order to be a serious encyclopedia, Wikipedia must base its articles on reliable primary and secondary sources whose authorship is (in most cases) separate from that of the article subject.
By
Sethrates
on February 20, 2007
Many Wikipedians think so, at least: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#The_common_notability_criterion
Agreed
14
4
77.8% 22.2%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
This claim was inspired by
Similar claims
- 19-11 It annoys me when the best proof I can find for something is wikipedia.
- 15-6 For unknown reasons, on Wikipedia, "Bob Dole Memorial Ocean" redirects to "Pacific Ocean."
- 29-4 Karl Marx would have liked Wikipedia.
- 92-3 Having a strong community is essential for the success of an open source product
- 12-0 Dawn Foster is Passionate about Open Source Software
Discussion (3)
Sometimes the subject is the most authoritative source, which implies less risk of errors in content.
In almost all cases, the subject has more of a vested interest in distortion than, say, the New York Times.
Dunno about NYT, not with John Markoff reporting...