Wikipedia? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

FangsNfeet -> Wikipedia? (3/21/2007 10:22:48 PM)

I've noticed that more and more people are refering to Wikipedia on the boards.

Is it just me or do others realize that Wikipedia is where anyone can put in a word, phrase, or topic and tell what it means?

In other words, anything in Wikipedia, has a high potential of having been made up. This includes the meaning and orgin of the topic in question. I can easily put in a bunch of BS about something and then say "Hey, look at Wikipedia and I'll show you I'm right."

So please remember that Wikipedia is not a good source for trying to prove a point.



SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/21/2007 10:26:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet
So please remember that Wikipedia is not a good source for trying to prove a point.

It is the bible didn't you know that?

Ross
©º°¨¨°º©



farglebargle -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/21/2007 10:27:18 PM)

It's a cyberspace implementation of the concept of "Consensual Reality" which the Social Constructivists dig so much.

Yeah, it's open. And of course, no one would use an encyclopedia for a primary reference. The "discussion" tab contents are sometimes quite enlightening, and fwiw, it's mostly useful and quite entertaining if you hit the "Random Article" button a few times.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/21/2007 10:27:36 PM)

Wikipedia is a great source to learn general quickie information about something.

If you want details or accuracy, go to the library.



MistressLorelei -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/21/2007 10:27:38 PM)

Well, according to Wikipedia, you are precisely correct.  Damn if that site isn't always wrong.

<smiles>



dcnovice -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/21/2007 10:31:44 PM)

My work often involves research, and I've used Wikipedia in conjuction with other sources. By and large, I've found it fairly helpful, though I'd never rely solely on it.

quote:

I can easily put in a bunch of BS about something and then say "Hey, look at Wikipedia and I'll show you I'm right."


You could, but it might not stay up for very long.



sweetnsensual -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/21/2007 10:32:11 PM)

Actually from what I've seen of wikipedia is that the people have to cite their sources and back up their claims.  Even then, people can debate their claims, causing their to be little notes at the top of the page saying things like "This page reads like it's an essay or opinion, discuss this in the boards" or "This page lacks citations, make citations" or whatever.  Personally, I'm not betting my life or putting high stakes on the information I gather from the site so it seems official enough for me hehe. 

I will admit, I do go there quite often and mostly research things like Norse mythology (last night), Christian mythology (last night), meaning and explanation of words and stories, etc.  Also, I go there for info on tv shows I like.  They even have spoilers so I don't have to waste 20 hours of my life and $30-$50 to find out where Charmed went wrong during the 8th season (well, let's be real, it went wrong wayyyy before the 8th season but I digress...)



SusanofO -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/21/2007 11:11:22 PM)

There's a guy on a political forum I frequent sometimes, who is always quoting Wikipedia. I just laugh at him. He treats it as if it was written by God, or something. [:D]

- Susan



FirmhandKY -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 12:02:28 AM)

There have been a couple of studies that have shown that Wiki is as accurate as other major, non-public encylopedias.

For most things, not related to the "lib vs right" wars (for general knowledge, in other words), it's a pretty good source, and it usually references it's own sources, so you can check up if you are leery about a particular source.

For things in the political arena, you can never be sure about the info, but, again, it can be a good starting point.

Often I'll look something up to refresh my memory of something I've already studied, and usually find it pretty accurate.

What I've found, is that usually, if someone doesn't like what a particular wiki article says, they'll cry about how "bad" wiki is.  If it supports them, then it's "alls good".

FirmKY



luckydog1 -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 1:38:32 AM)

Many wiki articles include footnotes, and links to more detailed info.  It is only usefull for basic facts, anyone attempting to pull editorial content from it is wasting time.



cjenny -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 2:34:25 AM)

Oh I am so glad you brought this up, I've been thinking about it quite a bit lately. The whole thing has been irritating the living heck out of me!

I do not nor will I use Wikipedia as a source of solid information. I simply don't trust the information. They have had huge issues with people editing others input simply for fun. Sure basic information is okay like if you want a general history of say.. Van Gogh or something, but for real trustworthy information NO WAY!!

It is almost like an oral history now, it changes with every person that contributes to it.

I didn't read any other responses cuz you hit a hot button on this with me. Oooooh I do not like Wikipedia can ya tell?



puella -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 3:28:44 AM)

Wiki is a peeve of mine as well, as well as people using it as the only 'facts' they have to back up their assertions.  I reckon it to those who use 'science papers' funded by special interest lobbying group, in a very small anomalous areas as opposed to peer reviewed and approved data which of course, is the basis for real scientific theory.



KatyLied -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 4:10:58 AM)

I love wiki, it's quick and easy.  It's only one reference resource among many.  If you are a scholar, go to the research library.   [;)]



puella -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 4:30:03 AM)

It has nothing to do with time and has everything to do with how factual the content is.  You do not need to spend hours in the library to find facts. I have no beef against wiki, but it really can not credibly cited as a credible source of bald fact. I stopped really putting any references to wikipedia when I started finding many many inconsistencies and false documentations listed in an 'encyclopedia' site.  It is no different than not using my gossipy scandal mongering older sister as any kind of basis for forming an opinion on mutual acquaintances.



farglebargle -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 5:47:00 AM)

quote:


It is almost like an oral history now,


Except with accountability and audit functions.



KatyLied -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 6:20:43 AM)

quote:

It has nothing to do with time


It does for me.  It's a search engine I added to my mozilla firefox.  It's quick and easy to use it to look stuff up.  But most of the stuff I look up isn't that important, so it doesn't bother me that it's a site that can be edited by anyone.



mixielicous -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 6:29:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetnsensual

Actually from what I've seen of wikipedia is that the people have to cite their sources and back up their claims. Even then, people can debate their claims, causing their to be little notes at the top of the page saying things like "This page reads like it's an essay or opinion, discuss this in the boards" or "This page lacks citations, make citations" or whatever. Personally, I'm not betting my life or putting high stakes on the information I gather from the site so it seems official enough for me hehe.


exactly, anything can be disputed. i dont take the things i read on there to heart, but i do recall it being one of the first places i saw the terms Master and slave. [;)]



WilliamWizer -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 6:31:10 AM)

It's only a starting point and another source of information but you are right, I would be foolish to use the wikipedia as the only source of (des)information.

Granted. there's a lot of useful information at the wikipedia but for each small piece of useful info there are ten or twenty big pieces of wrong information. the best thing of the wikipedia are the links to other related places.



mixielicous -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 6:35:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WilliamWizer

It's only a starting point and another source of information but you are right, I would be foolish to use the wikipedia as the only source of (des)information.

Granted. there's a lot of useful information at the wikipedia but for each small piece of useful info there are ten or twenty big pieces of wrong information. the best thing of the wikipedia are the links to other related places.

oh man, they do have great links lists!



kinkyATL -> RE: Wikipedia? (3/22/2007 6:49:50 AM)


quote:


Is it just me or do others realize that Wikipedia is where anyone can put in a word, phrase, or topic and tell what it means?

In other words, anything in Wikipedia, has a high potential of having been made up. This includes the meaning and orgin of the topic in question. I can easily put in a bunch of BS about something and then say "Hey, look at Wikipedia and I'll show you I'm right."

So please remember that Wikipedia is not a good source for trying to prove a point.


So you are complaining about Wikipedia being a poor reference source for a post in a post that does not contain any references at all.  And the scenario you propose as an argument for the veracity of your point of view involves intentional deception.  I think it is a fallacious argument for a couple of reasons:

1. Unless the article is unpopular, changes to it will be noticed by others and if they are blatantly false or unsupported, removed or the article reverted.

2. Wikipedia has a policy of requiring information to be sourced and referenced.  It is an encyclopedia and therefore by definition not a primary source.  You are always checking references, right?

3. Analysis of Wikipedia shows that it is accurate. An article ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html ) in Nature reveals that inaccuracies in article reviewed between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica were comparable.  The facts just don't back up your tacit assertion that Wikipedia is unreliable.  (Or rather more unreliable than say a commerically publish encyclopedia that does not accept general submissions.)




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125