HUMDINGER OF A PROBLEM

 I was looking for a quote about there being insufficient manpower for a 3rd immediate generation of war and found this at the usual source of misinformation. I suspect it has a lot to do with why it is a source of misinformation.

 –In the first identified problem area, it appears that a person who cares enough to write about it may have a close connection to the problem (maybe knows a thing or two about it)

–In the second problem area they seem to say that it is dubious because the drafter relied too much on sources that reflected enormous interest in the subject (knew a thing or two about it)

–and having grown to know to much about it based on direct experience it potentially makes the information it contains unverifiable and neutral (Do these idiots not know they are talking about wikipedia?) 

–Gasp! It contains original research! (Seriously, what can I say, this sounds awful)

–Holy Cow! It relies on primary sources for its facts?@! The nerve!

It amazes me that anybody ever relied upon wikipedia for anything real or true. I think in my generation this was best expressed in the old usenet days on sci.mil.naval when all of the commenters would sneer at anybody who cited wiki as their source and didn't have one of the standard desk top references available to use as source for cites, claims and counterclaims. The facts were endlessly arguable but nobody was going to bother debating clowns who relied on wikipedia for the facts they 'knew' about anything.

The online encyclopedia was an amazing idea and invention and doomed by the natural inclination of trolls to be trolls and OCD types to take control and make it is as painful and pointless as possible. It has become the gold standard for the original sin of DEI  where you know that some of it is garbage you freely jump to the assumption that all the rest is also garbage.

Remember when GIGO was not said with resignation but with the conviction that you could eliminate the Garbage? I do.