Wikipedia Article

I found this article very interesting-- it opened my eyes to just how prominent and useful the internet can be. I mean, I know how useful it is but I didn't realize how much bigger Wikipedia was than the Encyclopedia Britannica. I've always heard that Wikipedia is not a credible source because it can be edited by pretty much anyone, but I've never seen anything so outrageous or incorrect that suggests that some random kid went in and messed with the page; I think that what gets overlooked by teachers so often is the fact that there are people whose job it is to make sure that these pages stay as accurate as possible. Things like banning the whole House of Representatives because they kept trying to make themselves look better is a perfect example of how under control the website is. I am a huge fan of wikipedia-- it's so convenient, so user-friendly and more broad than any other source I can think of in terms of topics covered. Jimmy Wales, the founder, created a website that allows for access to apparently over a million topics at the user's disposal and I think that to have such an easy way to learn is both a curse and a blessing. It's wonderful to have such a fast spread of awareness of so many things and to make learning about them so much easier, but some people don't dive deeper past Wikipedia when doing research, and obviously not everything can be covered on every topic. It sometimes substitutes real research, and the use of hard copies of books and encyclopedias, which to me is kind of sad. I am a fan of the website and I find it very helpful but at the same time I think it should be used in addition to these other sources rather than replacing them, I think it should serve as a kind of starting point for research or studying and not be the sole source of it. As far as the article, I found the section on Essjay and the drama that surrounds the editing very fascinating, and the information that can be seen as subjective and what gets to stay on the site versus what doesn't. It seems overwhelming to think that there is so much to constantly monitor and fix, and the mention of five robots whose job it is to revert incorrect information just doesn't seem like that many. But I guess that the staff and the policies in place on top of that get the job done, because like I said, I've never seen any major flaws in an article.