Thursday, March 28, 2013


Dear and Discerning Readers,

Madame L thinks you may be interested in this article, "Wickedpedia: The dark side of Wikipedia."  Read it and weep.

As you know, Madame L has ever and before and will forever and after disparage the utility, based on accuracy and informative content, of the website Wikipedia. Madame L's experience as a college instructor  has only served to reinforce her distaste for and distrust of any so-called "facts" gleaned from the online pages of Wikipedia.

And now, it turns out that some Wikipedia insiders are writing articles for Wikipedia, guaranteeing that what they write will turn up at the tops of lists generated by web search engines. What's more, these people don't accept the contributions of the real subject matter experts in some areas.

Madame L is not surprised, is glad to see these facts come to life, and wonders why these people thought they wouldn't be found out.

Oh well, whatev,

Madame L

P.S. Madame L admits to having used information from Wikipedia to help answer some of her Dear Readers' questions and to find photos. Madame L will not do this again.


AskTheGeologist said...

Hmmm. One of Madame Elle's dearer (?) readers has used Wickedpecia a lot - even has a page on it hisself.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

AskTheGeologist said...

PS: The upsides are that Wikipedia doesn't cost $350 to access. Also, to their credit, Jimmy Wales and his team make a consistent effort to moderate and remove the self-serving entries, and are pretty quick to jump on people who try to trash someone, or vindictively modify an entry on something they have an agenda about.