At least Wikipedia has the goal of neutrality. And it documents its sources with links to the actual source. So I would say the Wikimedia foundation, and more specifically Wikipedia, has more credibility.
And before anybody pulls up who watches what more, keep in mind the question is credibility. Which is not based on how man times somebody watches it.
2007-11-27 10:55:15 · 13 answers · asked by Mitchell 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
FOX...fewer fingers in the pie. ANYONE can alter Wiki...we understand the opinions on FOX and can see past them to the content.
2007-11-27 11:00:30 · answer #1 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Definitely Wiki.
Fox News can say whatever they want. In fact, their conservative viewership demands news with a conservative spin on it.
Wikipedia is certainly not perfect, and it's always a good idea to check up on the accuracy of a Wikipedia entry, but this is simple because Wikipedia cites its sources at the bottom of the page. If you don't trust the entry, just read the source information yourself.
With Fox News you often get opinion and misinformation presented as fact with no opportunity to check the source of the info.
2007-11-27 11:09:30 · answer #2 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It is a toss up between Wiki and Jerry Springer. Fox News isn't even in the running for credibility.
A better comparison would be between Fox News and Jim Jones.
2007-11-27 11:01:29 · answer #3 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Wiki by a landslide. Fox News would not allow an opposing story to ever air. They completely ignore huge stories that make their people look bad which explains why so many Reps and Cons are so uninformed.
2007-11-27 11:15:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Wiki's may have a noble goal, but they can be barraged with misinformation more easily than major media outlets. If FOX is given a bad story by a questionable source, they'll eventually be called on it and have to retract the story. If Wiki articles are replaced with lunatic ramblings, they can revert them, but the lunatic ramblings can be put up again and again...
2007-11-27 11:06:08 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I wouldn't trust either one 100%, but I'd trust Wikipedia far more than Fox News because it at least allows an opportunity for opposing views and Fox doesn't.
2007-11-27 10:59:47 · answer #6 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
At least Wiki has the chance for different view points. That will never happen with FOX.
2007-11-27 10:58:44 · answer #7 · answered by chemcook 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I say Wikipedia.
Wikipedia documents its sources.
Fox News and News Busters has "anonymous" sources. For example, how they claim anonymous sources said Hillary was behind the Obama is a terrorist smear.
2007-11-27 10:58:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
wikipedia no one watches that kind of tv anymore
2007-11-27 11:20:57 · answer #9 · answered by half-jaw 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
LOL....both favored sources for the simple.
2007-11-27 11:08:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋