I wasn't going to do this

but I feel the desire to. And then I will be done with it.

What, you say, has gotten that bee in her bonnet all stirred up?

Well it's MY opinion (yes strictly mine but I can back it up with valid agreement if need be) on the "W" word. No not "W" as in Dubya. "W" as in wiki......ack it makes me vomit a little in my mouth just typing it. W-i-k-i-p-e-d-i-a.

Bleck.

Why do I get all red about it (haha)? Well for one that because a lot of people believe that this is the be-all-end-all as a source for all information. And this just doesn't stem from the inclusion of the link in various blogs in Blogland, students apparently try to use it as a scholastic source for research papers, and people in general use it as the "new" encyclopedia when wanting to know something about something. I will say that it can be ONE source of information, but many people seem to believe just what they read and not looking any further, that is has replaced the dictionary and encyclopedia system all at once (although I'm not a huge fan of encyclopedias, although I did as a kid just because well I was a kid).

I for one am a nosy biotch now. I had a tendency when I was younger to believe what people said or what I read on the first shot. WELL let me tell you I wised up fast. People will be more than happy to pull one over on you and two, "believe none of what you read". My grandfather told me that part, as well as "believe only half of what you see". Which does have a sense of truth to it, but then again if I believed none of what I read I don't think I'd believe anything (I think he meant the media, but alas that quote is not strict, it is adaptable). So after learning that people are evil and that in many cases what is written can be a lie or some variation thereof (whether it's lying by omission or flat out), I learned to research. And I won't stop at just one source, I make sure I have a few to back it up. If I have the time. If not I am somewhat skeptical about the information, but I learned at my ripe old age not to believe the first thing I see/hear when it comes out of people.

Anyway, which brings me back to w-i-k-i. I decided to see how I can go about putting my own entry in. You can. Anyone can. It's free (HINT HINT: If it's free, you GET what you PAY for). Anyone can put an entry in there and it doesn't have to have a ring of truth to it. Sure some things will be correct but it's not a reliable source. And it amazes me the amount of people who use it as such, including students for school since they are too lazy or too busy drinking and partying to actually do research outside of the computer screen (which we actually will get marked off because it's not considered a valid source for research). I'm still of the old school of actually finding valid information out of books and journals and the library. Sure i use the internet, but i also know where to look and for what sources and usually make sure those sources have first been in print or have much documentation from other sources that back up the information. Just because it says "dot.org" doesn't mean it is valid. Find out what is actually behind the organization (is it a reputable hospital or university? how long has it been around? is it non-profit or does it weave a secret web of silk claiming it's non-profit yet they receive private funding or spend money on S&M paraphernalia or shove money into nuclear boms? and on and on). I can pay for the dot.org and make up my own organization.......

So I decided to see if I could add a certain firestarter to the list of w-i-k-i entries. Well there is already one in there, many times I may add. But as I read further, it states you cannot put your friends in there. Well technically we are not friends but I wasn't sure how to put an entry in there so I haven't. God forbid I get banned by w-i-k-i- for adding something of a personal reference in there. Sure I can probably edit it or add my own entry, but I simply don't feel like it. I actually just wanted to see how easy it could be, and it seems relatively easy. So if I wanted to say that quasimoto was a new toe-jam mushroom found only in the moist areas between the big toe and the second toe (I think I'd have to come up with the technical term for that toe) then I probably could. And then someone researching toe-jam could find it, or mushrooms, depending.

So my point is.......if you must *sigh* use w-i-k-i as a source, look for other sources to back up the information. Then again if you don't give a shit, and most people don't care seeing as they are oblivious to the world around them and then wonder why the world is crumbling like a week old piece of bread left out in the desert sun for two weeks when all they have to do is pay attention more, exert their rights and maybe just maybe try to make a change instead of bitching about everything is someone else's fault.......feel free to use w-i-k-i and walk around with blinders on.

ok. i'm done with the "w" word.

i think