Wikipedia as a source
-
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.
-
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.
ryanb31 wrote:
just give me a few minutes and your source will not work anymore
Which is why it is good that Wikipedia shows the history of any edits to an article. :)
-
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 use WP to get the sources. I read the article and go to the sources, and start checking them. I've found several are broken links. But the most are functioning and full with info. Then, just take those sources I think are more credible (i.e. universities, government agencies ( :rolleyes: ), public institutes, etc. :)
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Disclaimer: I believe the majority of information on Wikipedia has some credibility.
[Citation Needed]
wizardzz wrote:
[Citation Needed]
FTFY!
public class SysAdmin : Employee
{public override void DoWork(IWorkItem workItem) { if (workItem.User.Type == UserType.NoLearn){ throw new NoIWillNotFixYourComputerException(new Luser(workItem.User)); }else{ base.DoWork(workItem); } }}
-
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.
A future version of Wikipedia, "Quantum Wikipedia," is now in progress by a consortium that includes the current Wikipedia, WikiLeaks, the Dalai Lama, Anonymous, Scientology International, the Santa Fe Institute, and Interpol, as well as scientists at FermiLab, BrookHaven, Lawrence Labs, Sandia, CERN, etc. In this version, credible information, and bull-shyte, will be simultaneously present depending on the bias of the viewer plus the collective entangled biases of all other viewer's present at the same moment in time accessing the same content. This will appear to the end-user as a "cloud" of hallucinatory fractal possible realities, which the end-user can "wander" at will (unless they are epileptic), until they finally select one possible reality as "real. However, skeptics claim that this is exactly what's going with Wikipedia already. Several of those skeptics, who have spoken out in public about this, using information obtained from unknown sources, have recently died in automobile accidents, and unusual accidents in their homes, often involving electrocution, or apparent spontaneous combustion, leading to conspiracy theories they are being "targeted." It is rumored that an unauthorized test of the alpha version of this database, and its access software, was responsible for the severe damage to the Large Hadron Collider in September, 2008. best, Bill
"Humans are amphibians ... half spirit and half animal ... as spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time. This means that while their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are in continual change, for to be in time, means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy, therefore, is undulation: the repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks.” C.S. Lewis
-
Why would a reference that cannot be changed be more accurate than one that may be changed. It seems you are confusing permanence with accuracy.
Quote:
Why would a reference that cannot be changed be more accurate than one that may be changed.
I didn't see the joke icon but you have to be kidding right? Let's say some genius posts an article to their blog about nanotechnology. Then someone writes a Wiki article referencing their post. You think that the Wiki article, that could be changed by a 5 year old, is as credible as the original post?
Quote:
It seems you are confusing permanence with accuracy.
Not at all. But something that can be changed by anyone with an internet connection does have less credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Why would a reference that cannot be changed be more accurate than one that may be changed.
I didn't see the joke icon but you have to be kidding right? Let's say some genius posts an article to their blog about nanotechnology. Then someone writes a Wiki article referencing their post. You think that the Wiki article, that could be changed by a 5 year old, is as credible as the original post?
Quote:
It seems you are confusing permanence with accuracy.
Not at all. But something that can be changed by anyone with an internet connection does have less credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
I didn't see the joke icon but you have to be kidding right? Let's say some genius posts an article to their blog about nanotechnology. Then someone writes a Wiki article referencing their post. You think that the Wiki article, that could be changed by a 5 year old, is as credible as the original post?
Let's say the genuis had a bad day and his blog post was factually wrong. The 5 year old writes a Wiki article which is then viewed by others. Some of the "others" notice a factual error carried over from the orginal blog to the Wiki article and they have the ability to correct it whereas the original source isn't available for correction and remains in error.
ryanb31 wrote:
But something that can be changed by anyone with an internet connection does have less credibility.
I think recent history has proven otherwise. We've several cases where the media has tried to force some silly story onto us with the impunity they've enjoyed for years - and then bloggers got ahold of the story and blew it up. These "anyone with an internet connection" types seem to get it right and that isn't suprising because truth is more often a process than a statement of fact handed down by some genius.
-
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.
Wikipedia as a source is not the problem. Wikipedia as the ONLY source is the problem. But, that applies to ANY source. That's why scientific articles often have dozens, or, occasionally, even hundreds of references. You should never use only one source as a definitive answer to anything, regardless of what the source may be. But, as others have stated, Wikipedia is a great 'jumping off point', as most articles have references that can take you to other sources. In the end, I trust it a lot more than the corporate controlled media that distorts information all the time to fit an agenda.
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke! My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
-
Quote:
Why would a reference that cannot be changed be more accurate than one that may be changed.
I didn't see the joke icon but you have to be kidding right? Let's say some genius posts an article to their blog about nanotechnology. Then someone writes a Wiki article referencing their post. You think that the Wiki article, that could be changed by a 5 year old, is as credible as the original post?
Quote:
It seems you are confusing permanence with accuracy.
Not at all. But something that can be changed by anyone with an internet connection does have less credibility.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
I didn't see the joke icon but you have to be kidding right? Let's say some genius posts an article to their blog about nanotechnology. Then someone writes a Wiki article referencing their post. You think that the Wiki article, that could be changed by a 5 year old, is as credible as the original post?
Even better: that genius invents a box that will spool out carbon nanotubes if you supply it with charcoal briquets. Wikipedia won't let him contribute any info on it because he's the prime source. He'll have to wait until someone else asks him about it, then they can write about it.
No dogs or cats are in the classroom. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
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.
Yeah, having some random guy who might not even be using his real name decide who and expert and what's authoritative on a particular subject is fine. I mean would could go wrong? Actually, I find reading the discussions behind a controversial page quite enlightening and entertaining.