much less the Holy Q'uran.
You’ll find that its entries on anything you know a bit about
are somewhat...
disappointing.
Not to mention the stylelessness.
Wikipedia reads like the robot it actually is.
Robots (of course - but it needs to be reiterated) are made by
humans who are tripping on the illusion of their own intelligence;
and if you have ever tried to amend (much less create) an entry in Wikipedia
you’ll have realised that the humans it is created for are meant to be
and acknowledge themselves as styleless, emotionless, comic-strip robots.
Wikipedia is not the Ultimate Fount of Knowledge,
a Great Service To Humanity and a Messenger of Truth -
but just one place, one low plane, of reference
like Walker’s Rhyming Dictionary.
2 comments:
If you think about it, the bible started out in a similar fashion to Wikipedia. People of questionable knowledge contributed articles to it, without fact checking, and editing wars and plagiarism between contributors ensued. Then they deleted some pertinent articles, including the talk pages, and called it the truth. And now, any idiot can quote it with conviction.
A very good point.
Post a Comment