"An Encyclopaedia full of crap"

I use Wikipedia as most people do but there are discrepancies about this useful yet sometimes fact-phobic website. As stated by Andrew Dalby in The World and Wikipedia: How we are Editing Reality, he says "Wikipedia is an user-based information online website, that can have information changed by anyone." he goes on to describe how the content user generators literally have "awesome power" and that they can write whatever they choose too, to an extent. Yet, when Wikipedia was first introduced one of the co founders of the website stated " You can edit this page right now!' While that may sound like a recipe for authorial anarchy, the quest for communal knowledge seems to have prevailed so far over any attempt to pit individual opinions against one another." Now that was said back in 2001and even though much of Wikipedia can be attested into being that way some of that notion has changed completely. Jimmy Wales (co-founder of Wikipedia) also stated "Its kind of surprising that you could just open up a site and let people work. There's kind of this real pressure to not argue about things." How things have changed Jimmy. Andrew Dalby goes into how often "wikipedians" use pages that they make or when they alter another page they leave questions or other rhetoric's to each other. To this effect you not only loose sight of factual information but your beginning to turn an encyclopedic type website into a rehashed version of Facebook to an extent. Little wars between these people should be kept in chat rooms and forums and not where there is supposed to be valid information for people to look at. When "wikipedians" (those who add new pages to the website) fight each other over what is written because sometimes things that are written are "agenda based," to literally how sometimes people just argue each other because they do not like what is said with "editing wars" (wikipedians literally edit over each other repeatedly till someone stops and the winner keeps his generated content up).These sorts of things can really tarnish the reputation of a fact based website even when it tries to self-evaluate its own pages. but to even further drive home the point that Wikipedia should never be a paramount place to acquire all legitimate information and should only be used as a stepping stone is the fact sometimes user-generators straight up just add false information just for kicks or to make a point. When you have pages that are constantly changing it doesn't take much for anyone to just edit a page as they feel fit. Now not everything with this website is terrible, not at all. The fact is Wikipedia is one of the largest information based websites around and it is very useful as a place as stated before to start your research off. More to the point what has just been said was a way to clarify that when you go to Wikipedia or another dot com website you need to critically think about what was said and take everything with a grain of salt. Verify the facts at different places and just make sure anything you read into at Wikipedia is susceptible to fallibility.