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.
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.
-
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.
ryanb31 wrote:
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their point of view which I find funny.
Versus what other source? Fox news? MSNBC? Some blog? A pro or anti subject website? Given that really supporting a point of view, presuming it isn't entirely subjective in the first place, requires a substantial amount of research both to find supporting (real) documentation from multiple sources and then verifying that what is reported there is backed by something real and hasn't be repudiated by another source. In other words a lot of work. And most people in most forums are not signing up for that.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their point of view which I find funny.
Versus what other source? Fox news? MSNBC? Some blog? A pro or anti subject website? Given that really supporting a point of view, presuming it isn't entirely subjective in the first place, requires a substantial amount of research both to find supporting (real) documentation from multiple sources and then verifying that what is reported there is backed by something real and hasn't be repudiated by another source. In other words a lot of work. And most people in most forums are not signing up for that.
Quote:
Versus what other source? Fox news? MSNBC? Some blog? A pro or anti subject website?
Good point. Notice my reference to Dilbert. The point of the post was for humors sake. Don't use a source to backup your argument if anyone has access to change that source.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Versus what other source? Fox news? MSNBC? Some blog? A pro or anti subject website?
Good point. Notice my reference to Dilbert. The point of the post was for humors sake. Don't use a source to backup your argument if anyone has access to change that source.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Don't use a source to backup your argument if anyone has access to change that source.
And so what source are you claiming for that distinction? I would suppose that it going to be really, really hard to change the copy of the US constitution which is kept on display in Washington. Probably difficult, but not impossible, to change various features carved into rocks and as parts of statues. Of course it is rather difficult for those of normal means to validate when someone points to one of those as a source and then one must physically visit it to verify it. But other than that, I can't think of any source that cannot be changed.
-
News outlets.. they even manage to mangle non-controversial stories into utter nonsense with a vague hint of truth buried deeply so inside it's hard to see. Or worse. Equal parts incompetence and political agenda. Or worse.
harold aptroot wrote:
News outlets.. they even manage to mangle non-controversial stories into utter nonsense
So true, it's specially laughable when they talk about something you have intimate knowledge about.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Don't use a source to backup your argument if anyone has access to change that source.
And so what source are you claiming for that distinction? I would suppose that it going to be really, really hard to change the copy of the US constitution which is kept on display in Washington. Probably difficult, but not impossible, to change various features carved into rocks and as parts of statues. Of course it is rather difficult for those of normal means to validate when someone points to one of those as a source and then one must physically visit it to verify it. But other than that, I can't think of any source that cannot be changed.
jschell wrote:
But other than that, I can't think of any source that cannot be changed.
So you don't believe the WTC towers are not there anymore?
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
jschell wrote:
But other than that, I can't think of any source that cannot be changed.
So you don't believe the WTC towers are not there anymore?
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
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.
there is this kind of snobbery about wikipedia, this sense of "well if any old riff raff can just edit it what good is it" maybe that riff raff has something good to add. yes its possible for someone to make an edit to say whatever they want, but its also possible for someone to remove it, and the history allows someone to roll back an edit which is wrong. the fact that fixing something is easier than breaking it (in many cases) makes fraudulent edits not worth it. and to address something someone above said about a genius inventing a box that spits out carbon nanotubes: if that genius invented such a device he should submit it to a peer-reviewed journal(such as science or nature) and then cite that journal. wikipedia is not a scientific journal...its an encyclopedia. you shouldn't just check the sources of wikipedia, you should check the sources of EVERYTHING. the difference wikipedia has is that if you find the sources are wrong you can update the wikipedia page, if you just found it in a blog it will remain wrong for as long as the writer wants.
-
News outlets.. they even manage to mangle non-controversial stories into utter nonsense with a vague hint of truth buried deeply so inside it's hard to see. Or worse. Equal parts incompetence and political agenda. Or worse.
Yeah, my feelings have been that reporters drop acid before they sit at their typewriters. Every time I've been interviewed, the story as published was unrecognizable from the actual events. I prefer to get the story from multiple sources (and check to make sure the story has been written by a different person, rather than just coming from a different publication) and then try to see through the distorted lenses what the real story might have been.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.