The best (apocryphal) example for what I describe as the fundamental feature of Wikipedia: ambiguity

A tongue in cheek Wired article pokes fun at Wikipedia‘s clumsy way of dealing with its most visible secret: the fact  that being the product of many minds it will reflect most of them, sometimes in contradictory terms. I described this phenomena in slightly less fun version in a recent paper on Wikipedia’s ambiguity. After you stop laughing take a look at it as well.

Excessively Neutral Point of View Wikipedia

Grass, according to many people who are scientists, or who are at least defined as scientists by what many people consider the scientific community, is a plant, although there are those who consider the distinction between plants and animals an artificial distinction and would classify them as “living things,” or “objects,” or “observable ideas.” There appear to be up to five or more people, give or take up to four or more, who post to Plant Conspiracy, which most people would consider a message board, who claim to deny that grasses exist, and who say that what we call grass is actually a very unusually shaped species of terrier. Most people would agree that many people think that these people are what would normally be considered nuts.

via Alt Text: Grass Is Always Greener on a Million Little Wikipedias | Underwire | Wired.com.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Where Wikipedia Ends – TIME (time.com)