The liars paradox' application would be "According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is unreliable". |
I find it amusing that the Wikipedia page devoted to criticisms of Wikipedia includes the criticism that Wikipedia "attempts to suppress criticism of itself." |
Yes, Wilipedia's nofollow... |
Not sure why you're surprised at this – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia trying to amass all human knowledge, which MUST include any notable and verifiable criticism of itself. |
FYI:
Sand Castles of Knowledge
"I've seen the light on Wikipedia, and I feel like a fool. I've used it, praised it, and, determined populist that I am, extolled it here as a model. I'm probably one of the few professors who has talked it up to his students and allowed them to cite it as a reference – carefully, with outside confirmation if possible, and judging the quality of an entry carefully. ...
The articles that a lot of people think they know something about, it turns out, are a nightmare. I take back everything: Wikipedia is a playground for belligerent adolescents."
http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2007/05/sand_castles_of_knowledge.html
|
The greater paradox lies in this comment on its talk page:
"To aviod Conflict of interest, all wikipedian should avoid editing this article. Thank You."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Please_avoid_editing_this_article_if_you_are_a_wikipedian. |
