Wikipedia as a source
-
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their point of view which I find funny. Dilbert [^] sums it up great. Disclaimer: I believe the majority of information on Wikipedia has some credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their point of view which I find funny. Dilbert [^] sums it up great. Disclaimer: I believe the majority of information on Wikipedia has some credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
It's especially nice because the most controversial topics are simultaneously the topics for which you would be most likely to be asked to quote a source and the topics for which Wikipedia is a bad source. On the other hand, there are no fully reputable sources for controversial topics. Even if they are reputable according to "one side" (the side that agrees with that source, obviously), the "other side" would disagree.
-
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their point of view which I find funny. Dilbert [^] sums it up great. Disclaimer: I believe the majority of information on Wikipedia has some credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Doctor Wikipedia, is now seeing patients.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "But you probably have the smoothest scrotum of any grown man" - Pete O'Hanlon (2012) -
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
bullsh*t simultaneously
Is it possible to be both "bull" and "shit" at the same time? Very interesting. :)
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "But you probably have the smoothest scrotum of any grown man" - Pete O'Hanlon (2012) -
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their point of view which I find funny. Dilbert [^] sums it up great. Disclaimer: I believe the majority of information on Wikipedia has some credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
It's especially nice because the most controversial topics are simultaneously the topics for which you would be most likely to be asked to quote a source and the topics for which Wikipedia is a bad source. On the other hand, there are no fully reputable sources for controversial topics. Even if they are reputable according to "one side" (the side that agrees with that source, obviously), the "other side" would disagree.
harold aptroot wrote:
there are no fully reputable sources for controversial topics.
I agree with this statement.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "But you probably have the smoothest scrotum of any grown man" - Pete O'Hanlon (2012) -
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their point of view which I find funny. Dilbert [^] sums it up great. Disclaimer: I believe the majority of information on Wikipedia has some credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
I don't see why Wikipedia would be any less accurate then an Encyclopedia, Scientific Journal, New York Times, or the CBS evening news. Of course, in the case of Wikipedia if you notice an error you can do something about it whereas the other sources I cited will tell you to take a flying leap.
-
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their point of view which I find funny. Dilbert [^] sums it up great. Disclaimer: I believe the majority of information on Wikipedia has some credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
I'm a frequent editor on the Wikipedia. Like any information source, it has its strengths and weaknesses. There is a cadre of dedicated people who monitor new articles and work to weed out obviously bad stuff. Articles for prominent or popular topics are on thousands of watch lists, which means that a lot of people monitor these articles and vet the quality and reliability of every edit; vandalism is usually dealt with quicky and persistent offenders get banned. The result is that, with most articles being written by consensus and under constant observation, the overall quality is pretty good and content is typically up-to-date. And even if you do not want to use the Wikipedia itself, most articles have more than enough references that will allow you to look up the information yourself.
-
I'm a frequent editor on the Wikipedia. Like any information source, it has its strengths and weaknesses. There is a cadre of dedicated people who monitor new articles and work to weed out obviously bad stuff. Articles for prominent or popular topics are on thousands of watch lists, which means that a lot of people monitor these articles and vet the quality and reliability of every edit; vandalism is usually dealt with quicky and persistent offenders get banned. The result is that, with most articles being written by consensus and under constant observation, the overall quality is pretty good and content is typically up-to-date. And even if you do not want to use the Wikipedia itself, most articles have more than enough references that will allow you to look up the information yourself.
-
They say that myths are based on fact.
-
-
I don't see why Wikipedia would be any less accurate then an Encyclopedia, Scientific Journal, New York Times, or the CBS evening news. Of course, in the case of Wikipedia if you notice an error you can do something about it whereas the other sources I cited will tell you to take a flying leap.
Yup. I've been registered as an editor since 2006. In my experience, the people who complain about bias and inaccuracy in the Wikipedia are people who feel strongly about a controversial topic and don't like the fact that articles are largely written by compromise, with a strong emphasis towards neutrality.
-
It's especially nice because the most controversial topics are simultaneously the topics for which you would be most likely to be asked to quote a source and the topics for which Wikipedia is a bad source. On the other hand, there are no fully reputable sources for controversial topics. Even if they are reputable according to "one side" (the side that agrees with that source, obviously), the "other side" would disagree.
Quote:
On the other hand, there are no fully reputable sources for controversial topics.
Too true. I used to work with 2 guys who would argue everyday about something. One's source was yahoo and the other used CNN. It always cracked me up because neither of them actually knew the whole truth.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
bullsh*t simultaneously
Is it possible to be both "bull" and "shit" at the same time? Very interesting. :)
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "But you probably have the smoothest scrotum of any grown man" - Pete O'Hanlon (2012)better check wikipedia
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
I'm a frequent editor on the Wikipedia. Like any information source, it has its strengths and weaknesses. There is a cadre of dedicated people who monitor new articles and work to weed out obviously bad stuff. Articles for prominent or popular topics are on thousands of watch lists, which means that a lot of people monitor these articles and vet the quality and reliability of every edit; vandalism is usually dealt with quicky and persistent offenders get banned. The result is that, with most articles being written by consensus and under constant observation, the overall quality is pretty good and content is typically up-to-date. And even if you do not want to use the Wikipedia itself, most articles have more than enough references that will allow you to look up the information yourself.
I agree, which is why I had to add my disclaimer. However, the huge weakness is that anyone can edit any article and can post whatever they want. So, if you come to me trying to prove me wrong and you use a wikipedia article as a source, just give me a few minutes and your source will not work anymore. :)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their point of view which I find funny. Dilbert [^] sums it up great. Disclaimer: I believe the majority of information on Wikipedia has some credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
My kids have both told me that when they are doing reports for school they are NOT allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. I tell them that if an article has references then use those references. Of course those could be wrong as well. A recent quote from the president of my company says that we are looking to "kill cancer and kill patients". I kinda doubt he really said that. The quote was later changed to "cure patients" online. But we printed it out just for the laugh.
Steve Maier
-
Quote:
On the other hand, there are no fully reputable sources for controversial topics.
Too true. I used to work with 2 guys who would argue everyday about something. One's source was yahoo and the other used CNN. It always cracked me up because neither of them actually knew the whole truth.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
My kids have both told me that when they are doing reports for school they are NOT allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. I tell them that if an article has references then use those references. Of course those could be wrong as well. A recent quote from the president of my company says that we are looking to "kill cancer and kill patients". I kinda doubt he really said that. The quote was later changed to "cure patients" online. But we printed it out just for the laugh.
Steve Maier
Quote:
I tell them that if an article has references then use those references.
I agree with that. The references, even if they are online, likely do not allow anyone in the world to change what it says, so they are more likely credible than Wiki.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their point of view which I find funny. Dilbert [^] sums it up great. Disclaimer: I believe the majority of information on Wikipedia has some credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
I tell them that if an article has references then use those references.
I agree with that. The references, even if they are online, likely do not allow anyone in the world to change what it says, so they are more likely credible than Wiki.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.