Accuracy is hard. As with many things, the first 90% takes 10% of the time, the last 10% takes 90%.
Wikipedia seems filled with <90% accurate information, which is misinformation (or BS). I could imagine an obvious reason, that these volunteers with limited expertise and facility with the information (i.e., they aren't experts in the field who know all the sources well) write what they know. Also, it is up to Wikipedia's standard de facto, and most people don't go beyond that norm.
Instead of lots of people providing <90% accurate misinfo, we need a few people producing 99.999% accurate info. (Seriously, if you are producing <90% accurate info, stop. The Internet has infinite amounts of it, if there was ever a marginal benefit to it, we don't need more now.)
It's easy to copy and share accurate info, in theory, rather than creating or sharing more BS. The other problem is that such info is often placed behind paywalls; the intellectual elite get it, but not the public. If you want an accurate science info, look at McGraw-Hill's AccessScience (the decendent of their leading Encyclopedia of Science and Technology), "written by world-renowned scientists, including 46 Nobel Prize Laureates" - not exactly Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you'll probably need an institutional subscriptioin. Who cares if high school kids (or anyone else) have accurate info?
Wikipedia seems filled with <90% accurate information, which is misinformation (or BS). I could imagine an obvious reason, that these volunteers with limited expertise and facility with the information (i.e., they aren't experts in the field who know all the sources well) write what they know. Also, it is up to Wikipedia's standard de facto, and most people don't go beyond that norm.
Instead of lots of people providing <90% accurate misinfo, we need a few people producing 99.999% accurate info. (Seriously, if you are producing <90% accurate info, stop. The Internet has infinite amounts of it, if there was ever a marginal benefit to it, we don't need more now.)
It's easy to copy and share accurate info, in theory, rather than creating or sharing more BS. The other problem is that such info is often placed behind paywalls; the intellectual elite get it, but not the public. If you want an accurate science info, look at McGraw-Hill's AccessScience (the decendent of their leading Encyclopedia of Science and Technology), "written by world-renowned scientists, including 46 Nobel Prize Laureates" - not exactly Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you'll probably need an institutional subscriptioin. Who cares if high school kids (or anyone else) have accurate info?