Actually I have never edited a Wikipedia entry, although I use it all the time and have considered editing something.  You don't even need to register to change anything – it will use your IP address to know who edited the article.  It's very easy to edit stuff.  Simply click on the “edit” button and add, delete, or change whatever you want.You can practice on the Gunsandall.com wiki if you want first, at http://gunsandall.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page .  It's pretty simple, actually.  I'm not sure who cretes the "citation needed" superscript notations, but I imagine ordinary users can do that.

I think it's easier than you think.  For example, if you were to edit the “Matchlock” entry, you'd 1. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matchlock2. Click on "edit this page" at top3. Enter the appropriate information4. Click "Show preview" or "Save page" if you're satisfiedIt's really pretty easy.  They try to make is like that so many people will contribute.

So if I make something there, someone can go in and edit the information?  Is there a way to lock it?  (probably not since it's public).  Maybe I'd be better off with a web page.

Yes, someone else can go an edit what you write.  However, then someone else can go back and restore what was changed from what you said.  If what you write is factually-based, and is on a topic that isn't a hot-button issue, then chances are your words won't be changed any time soon.  I think that sometimes people might have editing wars on entries which are politically or socially charged.  Obviously you can't post opinion pieces on Wikipedia but if you have something fact-based to say it's a good way to go.

I really enjoy Wickipedia, but since it is a public site, is there any quality control besides the public? And have any of you found anything on there that was blatently wrong?

A. NoB. YesWhat they count on is for the public to "police" entries frequently enough to prevent "vandalism".  On occasion, however, Wikipedia administrators can "lock" entries which become frequent targets by pranksters.  I believe they can also ban IP addresses or members of egregious violators.Most of the stuff on Wikipedia is quite good because experts in their fields, or perhaps knowledgeable non-experts contribute to the articles.  Because of the "public editing" nature, entries can be updated immediately as current events unfold, which is neat.Some times, however, you do come across articles which look like they were written by someone who can't really write well, or you might find some misspelled words or what not.  It's the nature of the site.

Yeah that's actually the way things (hopefully) work on that site.  When there are questionable things on there they should be corrected by someone.  Sometimes there is a debate as to what is really “factual” and what is “spin”.  I've thought about doing some editing on Wikipedia in the past but I've thought I might get sucked into it too much, and also I wonder how I'd feel if some kid Wikipedian edited what I wrote.  I read about one person who had written some stuff on Wikipedia who evidently was so much an expert in this field that he could command $$ to write entries in actual encyclopedias.  However, he had the misfortune of having someone edit his material on Wikipedia, and I think he got fed up and stopped contributing.  It can be a sad state of affairs.

That's why I don't really like the concept.  I thought maybe one could "lock" his or her entry.   Guess I'll  just have to learn to make a web page.  😮

Well when you are ready, Phid and I can help you setup a nice website.  Be warned though, once you start playing around with websites, you'll get addicted real quick. 😀

Interesting Conservapedia site.  I hadn't seen it before.  I also haven't seen much liberal bias on Wikipedia, although I have seen some that might have been.  I wonder, however, what the advantage is of starting a new user-edited encyclopedia rather than taking all that effort into editing the current Wikipedia. I imagine there's a high liklihood of political campaigns and social crusaders who specifically monitor certain Wikipedia pages in order to insert favorable information about their candidates/causes and delete unfavorable items.  I think this is a good probability at least in some circles.  The control of information and image is very important and if you can pass off your views in a place where people expect to find neutral information, all the better.  I don't think this is always a bad thing, but it can be.