Wikepdia

Wikepdia (Full Version)

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

Message

candystripper -> Wikepdia (7/1/2008 12:02:05 PM)
How much do you trust this source for facts and history? Ever found an error in Wikepdia? Feel better about articles with external links? Ever contribute to Wikepedia? Tell us which article. I trust Wikepedia to a degree, particularly when it presents a cogent review of history or facts I already know. I like the writing in it. candystripper

ownedgirlie -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 12:05:40 PM)
I might occasionally use Wiki to springboard my research into other areas. I might read it to get an overview as a starting point, but I always look for external links and click on them, and see what else Google has to offer. I don't read Wiki carefully enough to notice if there are errors, and I have never contributed.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 12:05:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper How much do you trust this source for facts and history? Ever found an error in Wikepdia? Feel better about articles with external links? Ever contribute to Wikepedia? Tell us which article. I trust Wikepedia to a degree, particularly when it presents a cogent review of history or facts I already know. I like the writing in it. candystripper Wikipedia is as reliable as its sources. It's a handy reference site, easily accessible and navigable. However, I make a point of checking the references at the end of each article. "Trust, but verify".

Lynnxz -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 12:08:17 PM)
You have the most random topics. Wikipedia is ok, but lots of personal opinion all over it. I've found 'Penis' and 'Boob' interjected in a few articles... school must have been out.

kdsub -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 12:33:51 PM)
I think it’s an excellent site...as others have stated I hesitate to quote it unless I can find another supporting source but that is the case with any Internet information I use. AND even then you can find multiple sources supporting any viewpoint. There is very little in this world with an absolute correct undeniable unarguable answer. Butch

fluffyswitch -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 12:39:10 PM)
i hate it. i read it for entertainment and common search terms but beyond that i avoid it like the plague. i've read things that are blatantly full of crap, things that have been directly plagarized from academic journals, and things that are sort of right but are wrong enough to create major issues. it's fine for things that i don't really care about but for anything worthwhile i stay as far away from it as i can.

sub4hire -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 1:02:50 PM)
I've never much used it yet. The idea that anyone including a 5 year old can change any article on the site...makes me want to stay away. I have read articles pertaining to this and that when someone has sent me a link. I've seen discrepancies. No idea if it is widespread over wiki. I am a fan of wikihow. Nope, never contributed and I don't see myself doing so in the future. Where does the link send me?

DomKen -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 2:33:27 PM)
I read wiki a fair bit. It usually provides a good encyclopedia level intro to a subject and covers a fairly broad range of topics including current events and pop culture. Yes, there are better and worse articles and you will on occasion hit an article that has been vandalized but they don't tend to stay up long. One handy feature is every page has a full revision history so worst case is you can always look up the previous state of the article and that will usually get you past the graffiti. I don't contribute to wiki but I have a lot of friends who do. The articles on biology, evolution, paleontology and related subjects are worked on by leading researchers who firmly believe in making science accessible to the public.

DomAviator -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 3:38:07 PM)
Personally I think Wikipedia is crap and I take anything I find there with a giant helping of salt. It is actually the bane of my existence as I sometimes encounter students or clients who refer to it rather than to the authoritative sources - such as the Airman's Information Manual, FAR's, Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, FAA Advisory Circulars, or the manufacturers appoved Pilot's Operating Manual. The stuff on aviation is generally either dead wrong or simplied to the point of no longer being relevant. Its a real pain in the ass to try to explain to a client that I dont care what Wikipedia says, your Lear 24 does NOT have that range because we have to maintain IFR reserves so we need to be able to fly to the airport of intended landing, then to the alternate, and then for 45 minutes thereafter so whether Wiki likes it or not, we need to make a fuel stop... Similarly, the areas on military history are equally fucked up. I looked at the article for the movie Rescue Dawn, and I KNOW the story is about Dieter Dengler, and I KNOW he was in VA-145 as I was too and he was kind of a legend... All I wanted to know before I went and saw the movie is if he was in when it had Skyraiders or Intruders. Low and behold the article identified him as Lt.Col Iceal Hambleton - which was the guy from BAT-21. Wrong year, wrong movie, wrong guy, wrong branch of the service.... Eventually the article got corrected, and then they had Dieter in VFA-15 which is a Hornet squadron so he was flying an aircraft that didnt exist during Vietnam, in a squadron that didnt exist during Vietnam. This kind of crap is exactly the reason why many colleges will not accept Wiki as a citation on a research paper.

Alumbrado -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 4:02:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper I trust Wikepedia to a degree, particularly when it presents a cogent review of history or facts I already know. I like the writing in it. candystripper Really? Do you like this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist

faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 4:14:03 PM)
god forbid a reference site with error's...yikes... but you get the jist of things...and yes some stuff will be wrong.... it isnt god. it works well for things i have looked at. and i dont have to explain what intersexed is anymore....i just send people to wiki.

pahunkboy -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 4:38:54 PM)
Yes I have contributed to it. I would not use to to discover facts on politicians or controversial people.

pahunkboy -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 4:43:52 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) I see my edit was removed... whatever

camille65 -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 4:52:32 PM)
Hey faery, I love your new photo! As to Wikipedia? I don't use it. The only time I read it is if someone links or uses it as a reference. I don't care for it, it doesn't have the flavor of impartiality which is important to me in regards to research material.

abcbsex -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 9:14:36 PM)
I use it when I have no idea what something is, and want to be clued in quickly. Also, if you just need a quick refresher about something in history, or scientific, it's usually alright. For real research it's a joke. And I never ever try to use it as a reference during an argument. If I haven't read it elsewhere, I don't trust it completely.

candystripper -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 9:54:22 PM)
The Encyclopedia Brittanica and other similar materials are avilable on-line. Seems to be a pay site, but limited use may be allowed for free. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098384/ The Oxford English Dictionary makes you pay a subscription fee -- which no one wants to 'give' me as a present <pouts>. http://www.oed.com/ What accounts for the popularity of Wikepedia? Why is always among the first results to come up on Google? Many scientific journals will give out free memberships on a trial basis. http://content.nejm.org/ candystripper

TheHeretic -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 10:19:37 PM)
It's pretty awful for anything dealing with current events, or controversial subjects. For every grafittist and scholar contributing, there is a pr flack keeping something right on the official party/company line. Not my preferred reference material. Dates, names, the concert schedule for Woodstock, or a color coded map of Reagan's 1980 lanslide? I love Wikipedia. Oh, and the plot spoilers for movies.

Vendaval -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 10:32:59 PM)
I use it as a quick reference tool and follow the sources cited for further information along with other sites that show up in a browser search. And of course there is something called a library with actual physical books inside where you can read for free!

ownedgirlie -> RE: Wikepdia (7/1/2008 11:31:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval And of course there is something called a library with actual physical books inside where you can read for free! Gasp!!! [sm=insane.gif]

PainSmith -> RE: Wikepdia (7/2/2008 12:29:31 AM)
First of all, the obvious: wikipedia's an encyclopaedia, so is quite obvious not a place to go if you want first hand research. Also, since the world is full of liars, facts that scare the liars is very likely to be muddied at best, so you certainly can't trust an article about something contentious. However, wikipedia is not consistently and deliberately lying all the time, unlike more traditional media sources, so, given a conflict between wiki and, say, anything Murdoch, I'd go with the wiki. But if you want a general source of information, wikipedia has been indepently validated by some top notch publishers of research, including Nature. They declared it to be generally as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, just not as well written. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html (if you're willing to pay) Stern made a comparison between Wikipedia and Brokhaus, a German encyclopaedia. This time, wikipedia came out well ahead. Unfortunately, the article itself is only available in print or online if you pay, SFAICT. These two links are in German: http://www.stern.de/magazin/heft/:Editorial-Wie-Wikipedia/604451.html (stern editorial) http://wikipedistik.de/2007/12/05/stern-titelthema-wie-gut-ist-wikipedia/ (summary of article) In other words, if you want an encyclopaedia, the wiki is one of the best, according to the best.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625