Usefulness of Wikipedia
-
I had lunch with a friend (an academic) some time last week. He elaborated at length on the many factual errors he finds in Wikipedia articles on his field of expertise. He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this (as his students keep using Wikipedia as a source) only to find his corrections systematically erased within days. The problem, he said, was that there is no critical assessment of the literature on which contributors based their opinions. His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia and that the ultimate usefulness of Wikipedia (under this circumstance) can be no more than entertainment. I've never paid much for Wikipedia but I was intrigued and decided to test out my friend's observations. He was right. Factual errors abound and corrections quickly lead to, apparently so-called, "edit wars". What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
As with most things, some folks like it, others hate it. While I've no doubt that those "edit wars" do exist, I have to wonder if they're pertaining to people's opinions rather than fact. For example, I once made a change to a Star Trek article regarding a person that Captain Picard was talking to. It was not my opinion that he was talking to a certain person, it was fact. Had I instead altered some text that relied upon the reader having certain experience(s) or within a certain context (e.g., "I think he acted this way because..."), I could see it being changed back and forth. On the other hand, it may just be some adolescent getting his jollies by seeing his "work" in print.
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"The brick walls are there for a reason...to stop the people who don't want it badly enough." - Randy Pausch
-
I had lunch with a friend (an academic) some time last week. He elaborated at length on the many factual errors he finds in Wikipedia articles on his field of expertise. He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this (as his students keep using Wikipedia as a source) only to find his corrections systematically erased within days. The problem, he said, was that there is no critical assessment of the literature on which contributors based their opinions. His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia and that the ultimate usefulness of Wikipedia (under this circumstance) can be no more than entertainment. I've never paid much for Wikipedia but I was intrigued and decided to test out my friend's observations. He was right. Factual errors abound and corrections quickly lead to, apparently so-called, "edit wars". What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
It is useful as a jumping off point and as a quick overview of a subject. Then it links off to more in-depth sources. And as someone else mentioned no one source is perfect. Britannica has errors and bias too. I also think people should use their noggin when reading anything, no matter how much they trust the source (Don't trust everything I say, I talk shite a lot of the time.) (Only the HHGTTG is perfect, the exception that proves the rule. Good luck finding a HHGTTG in this back-water solar system though.)
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
I had lunch with a friend (an academic) some time last week. He elaborated at length on the many factual errors he finds in Wikipedia articles on his field of expertise. He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this (as his students keep using Wikipedia as a source) only to find his corrections systematically erased within days. The problem, he said, was that there is no critical assessment of the literature on which contributors based their opinions. His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia and that the ultimate usefulness of Wikipedia (under this circumstance) can be no more than entertainment. I've never paid much for Wikipedia but I was intrigued and decided to test out my friend's observations. He was right. Factual errors abound and corrections quickly lead to, apparently so-called, "edit wars". What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
No one source should ever be trusted. I believe, if you pull information from multiple sources, circle the commonalities, it is there in which you'll find more truth than not. Obviously, there are still cases where even that would fail (i.e., pulling from too many like minded sources), so common sense still must play a major roll in the information gathering process.
Last modified: 2hrs 24mins after originally posted --
-
I had lunch with a friend (an academic) some time last week. He elaborated at length on the many factual errors he finds in Wikipedia articles on his field of expertise. He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this (as his students keep using Wikipedia as a source) only to find his corrections systematically erased within days. The problem, he said, was that there is no critical assessment of the literature on which contributors based their opinions. His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia and that the ultimate usefulness of Wikipedia (under this circumstance) can be no more than entertainment. I've never paid much for Wikipedia but I was intrigued and decided to test out my friend's observations. He was right. Factual errors abound and corrections quickly lead to, apparently so-called, "edit wars". What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
I don't knwo about accuracy... But I often use it to kick start my reflection on algorithm... The latest entry I used was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent%27s_method[^] That was really very helpful! Now I don't know about error, I don't just copy / paste the algorithm, I have to slowly let the understanding dawn on me and implement it myself to get a working C# version, this way I by pass possible error... Anyhow, good point to bring! I never though much of it, I guess I should have!
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
I had lunch with a friend (an academic) some time last week. He elaborated at length on the many factual errors he finds in Wikipedia articles on his field of expertise. He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this (as his students keep using Wikipedia as a source) only to find his corrections systematically erased within days. The problem, he said, was that there is no critical assessment of the literature on which contributors based their opinions. His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia and that the ultimate usefulness of Wikipedia (under this circumstance) can be no more than entertainment. I've never paid much for Wikipedia but I was intrigued and decided to test out my friend's observations. He was right. Factual errors abound and corrections quickly lead to, apparently so-called, "edit wars". What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
I find it a very good source of programing and system administration information particularly for the linux operating system.
John
-
I had lunch with a friend (an academic) some time last week. He elaborated at length on the many factual errors he finds in Wikipedia articles on his field of expertise. He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this (as his students keep using Wikipedia as a source) only to find his corrections systematically erased within days. The problem, he said, was that there is no critical assessment of the literature on which contributors based their opinions. His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia and that the ultimate usefulness of Wikipedia (under this circumstance) can be no more than entertainment. I've never paid much for Wikipedia but I was intrigued and decided to test out my friend's observations. He was right. Factual errors abound and corrections quickly lead to, apparently so-called, "edit wars". What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
DaTxomin wrote:
What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
Most accredited institutions do not allow it to be cited. I am very surprised your friend allows it.
Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 - humanaiproject.org - Last.fm - pswrdgen - Joesox.com
-
I had lunch with a friend (an academic) some time last week. He elaborated at length on the many factual errors he finds in Wikipedia articles on his field of expertise. He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this (as his students keep using Wikipedia as a source) only to find his corrections systematically erased within days. The problem, he said, was that there is no critical assessment of the literature on which contributors based their opinions. His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia and that the ultimate usefulness of Wikipedia (under this circumstance) can be no more than entertainment. I've never paid much for Wikipedia but I was intrigued and decided to test out my friend's observations. He was right. Factual errors abound and corrections quickly lead to, apparently so-called, "edit wars". What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
-
It is useful as a jumping off point and as a quick overview of a subject. Then it links off to more in-depth sources. And as someone else mentioned no one source is perfect. Britannica has errors and bias too. I also think people should use their noggin when reading anything, no matter how much they trust the source (Don't trust everything I say, I talk shite a lot of the time.) (Only the HHGTTG is perfect, the exception that proves the rule. Good luck finding a HHGTTG in this back-water solar system though.)
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
Paul Watson wrote:
I also think people should use their noggin when reading anything
But that's because your a hoopy frood who knows where his towel is.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Like everything on the internet, it needs ot be treated with caution. In reference to GW though, its laughable.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Like everything on the internet, it needs ot be treated with caution.
Yeah, give me a printed tabloid anyday! Damned internets.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
It is useful as a jumping off point and as a quick overview of a subject. Then it links off to more in-depth sources. And as someone else mentioned no one source is perfect. Britannica has errors and bias too. I also think people should use their noggin when reading anything, no matter how much they trust the source (Don't trust everything I say, I talk shite a lot of the time.) (Only the HHGTTG is perfect, the exception that proves the rule. Good luck finding a HHGTTG in this back-water solar system though.)
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
Paul Watson wrote:
Only the HHGTTG is perfect
Although it has been edited for space restrictions (see entry for "Earth"). And it does get revised from time to time (see change history for the entry for "Earth")
Graham Librarians rule, Ook!
-
fat_boy wrote:
Like everything on the internet, it needs ot be treated with caution.
Yeah, give me a printed tabloid anyday! Damned internets.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Only the HHGTTG is perfect
Although it has been edited for space restrictions (see entry for "Earth"). And it does get revised from time to time (see change history for the entry for "Earth")
Graham Librarians rule, Ook!
Graham Shanks wrote:
see change history for the entry for "Earth"
Topic not found.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
DaTxomin wrote:
What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
Most accredited institutions do not allow it to be cited. I am very surprised your friend allows it.
Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 - humanaiproject.org - Last.fm - pswrdgen - Joesox.com
My mistake. He didn't mean that his students use it as a reference (on a paper, for example). He meant that his students use it in the belief that it is an credible source of information. I didn't know that academic institutions prohibit citing Wikipedia. It would explain a lot.
-
Anyone can put anything on the internet. Even garbage like the Daily Mail and the Guardian are free from that, displaying merely the bias of social groups rather than individuals.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
You obviously never walked out of a London tube station and seen all the tabloids. (Anyone can print anything. Little invention called the printing press which has led to computer printers for less than $50.)
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
No one source should ever be trusted. I believe, if you pull information from multiple sources, circle the commonalities, it is there in which you'll find more truth than not. Obviously, there are still cases where even that would fail (i.e., pulling from too many like minded sources), so common sense still must play a major roll in the information gathering process.
Last modified: 2hrs 24mins after originally posted --
-
My mistake. He didn't mean that his students use it as a reference (on a paper, for example). He meant that his students use it in the belief that it is an credible source of information. I didn't know that academic institutions prohibit citing Wikipedia. It would explain a lot.
It is a good starting point. I like the external references on the bottom of the wiki pages. Normally those are the sites that may be cited.
Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 - humanaiproject.org - Last.fm - pswrdgen - Joesox.com
-
I had lunch with a friend (an academic) some time last week. He elaborated at length on the many factual errors he finds in Wikipedia articles on his field of expertise. He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this (as his students keep using Wikipedia as a source) only to find his corrections systematically erased within days. The problem, he said, was that there is no critical assessment of the literature on which contributors based their opinions. His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia and that the ultimate usefulness of Wikipedia (under this circumstance) can be no more than entertainment. I've never paid much for Wikipedia but I was intrigued and decided to test out my friend's observations. He was right. Factual errors abound and corrections quickly lead to, apparently so-called, "edit wars". What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
For purely technical or dry historical topics Wikipedia is usually very good, especially with the more esoteric ones. On subjective topics, Wikipedia tends to be fairly bad. The biggest problem are obsessive contributors who "camp" out on topics and make sure nothing is stated that disagrees with their viewpoint. I've run across topics that have nothing but nonsense information and others where the information is correct but limited.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
I had lunch with a friend (an academic) some time last week. He elaborated at length on the many factual errors he finds in Wikipedia articles on his field of expertise. He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this (as his students keep using Wikipedia as a source) only to find his corrections systematically erased within days. The problem, he said, was that there is no critical assessment of the literature on which contributors based their opinions. His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia and that the ultimate usefulness of Wikipedia (under this circumstance) can be no more than entertainment. I've never paid much for Wikipedia but I was intrigued and decided to test out my friend's observations. He was right. Factual errors abound and corrections quickly lead to, apparently so-called, "edit wars". What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
DaTxomin wrote:
He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this [...] only to find his corrections systematically erased within days.
DaTxomin wrote:
His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia
Damn egomaniacs, making contentious edits without bothering to engage other editors in discussion. :rolleyes:
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
I had lunch with a friend (an academic) some time last week. He elaborated at length on the many factual errors he finds in Wikipedia articles on his field of expertise. He said that he has tried on sereval instances to correct this (as his students keep using Wikipedia as a source) only to find his corrections systematically erased within days. The problem, he said, was that there is no critical assessment of the literature on which contributors based their opinions. His final assessment was that ego rules over reason in Wikipedia and that the ultimate usefulness of Wikipedia (under this circumstance) can be no more than entertainment. I've never paid much for Wikipedia but I was intrigued and decided to test out my friend's observations. He was right. Factual errors abound and corrections quickly lead to, apparently so-called, "edit wars". What are your thoughts on and experiences with Wikipedia?
Yup, exactly the same thing happened to me. I made an edit in an area about a particular fact that was incorrect and in an area of my interest which I've spent years learning about, it was a fact not open to any interpretation and some jackass reverted the edit. I reverted it again and told them to quit fucking with it without doing a little research first and it's stood so far, but I realized life is too short to bother. Wikipedia should invite guest experts to work on various areas then lock them down from the public. I think WikiPedia is only useful in narrow categories and areas which are very common knowledge such as pop culture, tv episode guides etc and in more arcane or grown up areas it's only useful as a way to discover more potential search terms to find the information on a more authoritative source. If I was a teacher and anyone handed in something with a reference to Wikipedia I send it right back.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Yup, exactly the same thing happened to me. I made an edit in an area about a particular fact that was incorrect and in an area of my interest which I've spent years learning about, it was a fact not open to any interpretation and some jackass reverted the edit. I reverted it again and told them to quit fucking with it without doing a little research first and it's stood so far, but I realized life is too short to bother. Wikipedia should invite guest experts to work on various areas then lock them down from the public. I think WikiPedia is only useful in narrow categories and areas which are very common knowledge such as pop culture, tv episode guides etc and in more arcane or grown up areas it's only useful as a way to discover more potential search terms to find the information on a more authoritative source. If I was a teacher and anyone handed in something with a reference to Wikipedia I send it right back.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
John C wrote:
Wikipedia should invite guest experts to work on various areas then lock them down from the public.
Wouldn't be much of a wiki then. :)
cheers, Paul M. Watson.