Wikipedia?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Wikipedia?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

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

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Wikipedia? - 3/21/2007 10:22:48 PM

FangsNfeet

Posts: 3758
Joined: 12/3/2004
Status: offline

I've noticed that more and more people are refering to Wikipedia on the boards.

Is it just me or do others realize that Wikipedia is where anyone can put in a word, phrase, or topic and tell what it means?

In other words, anything in Wikipedia, has a high potential of having been made up. This includes the meaning and orgin of the topic in question. I can easily put in a bunch of BS about something and then say "Hey, look at Wikipedia and I'll show you I'm right."

So please remember that Wikipedia is not a good source for trying to prove a point.

_____________________________

I'm Godzilla and you're Japan

Post #: 1

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/21/2007 10:26:06 PM

SirDiscipliner69

Posts: 2607
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet
So please remember that Wikipedia is not a good source for trying to prove a point.

It is the bible didn't you know that?

Ross
©º°¨¨°º©

(in reply to FangsNfeet)

Post #: 2

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/21/2007 10:27:18 PM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

It's a cyberspace implementation of the concept of "Consensual Reality" which the Social Constructivists dig so much.

Yeah, it's open. And of course, no one would use an encyclopedia for a primary reference. The "discussion" tab contents are sometimes quite enlightening, and fwiw, it's mostly useful and quite entertaining if you hit the "Random Article" button a few times.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to FangsNfeet)

Post #: 3

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/21/2007 10:27:36 PM

LuckyAlbatross

Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline

Wikipedia is a great source to learn general quickie information about something.

If you want details or accuracy, go to the library.

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to SirDiscipliner69)

Post #: 4

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/21/2007 10:27:38 PM

MistressLorelei

Posts: 997
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline

Well, according to Wikipedia, you are precisely correct. Damn if that site isn't always wrong.

<smiles>

(in reply to FangsNfeet)

Post #: 5

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/21/2007 10:31:44 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

My work often involves research, and I've used Wikipedia in conjuction with other sources. By and large, I've found it fairly helpful, though I'd never rely solely on it.

quote:

I can easily put in a bunch of BS about something and then say "Hey, look at Wikipedia and I'll show you I'm right."

You could, but it might not stay up for very long.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to MistressLorelei)

Post #: 6

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/21/2007 10:32:11 PM

sweetnsensual

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/9/2005
Status: offline

Actually from what I've seen of wikipedia is that the people have to cite their sources and back up their claims. Even then, people can debate their claims, causing their to be little notes at the top of the page saying things like "This page reads like it's an essay or opinion, discuss this in the boards" or "This page lacks citations, make citations" or whatever. Personally, I'm not betting my life or putting high stakes on the information I gather from the site so it seems official enough for me hehe.

I will admit, I do go there quite often and mostly research things like Norse mythology (last night), Christian mythology (last night), meaning and explanation of words and stories, etc. Also, I go there for info on tv shows I like. They even have spoilers so I don't have to waste 20 hours of my life and $30-$50 to find out where Charmed went wrong during the 8th season (well, let's be real, it went wrong wayyyy before the 8th season but I digress...)

(in reply to FangsNfeet)

Post #: 7

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/21/2007 11:11:22 PM

SusanofO

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

There's a guy on a political forum I frequent sometimes, who is always quoting Wikipedia. I just laugh at him. He treats it as if it was written by God, or something.

- Susan

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to sweetnsensual)

Post #: 8

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 12:02:28 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

There have been a couple of studies that have shown that Wiki is as accurate as other major, non-public encylopedias.

For most things, not related to the "lib vs right" wars (for general knowledge, in other words), it's a pretty good source, and it usually references it's own sources, so you can check up if you are leery about a particular source.

For things in the political arena, you can never be sure about the info, but, again, it can be a good starting point.

Often I'll look something up to refresh my memory of something I've already studied, and usually find it pretty accurate.

What I've found, is that usually, if someone doesn't like what a particular wiki article says, they'll cry about how "bad" wiki is. If it supports them, then it's "alls good".

FirmKY

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to SusanofO)

Post #: 9

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 1:38:32 AM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Many wiki articles include footnotes, and links to more detailed info. It is only usefull for basic facts, anyone attempting to pull editorial content from it is wasting time.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 10

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 2:34:25 AM

cjenny

Posts: 1736
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline

Oh I am so glad you brought this up, I've been thinking about it quite a bit lately. The whole thing has been irritating the living heck out of me!

I do not nor will I use Wikipedia as a source of solid information. I simply don't trust the information. They have had huge issues with people editing others input simply for fun. Sure basic information is okay like if you want a general history of say.. Van Gogh or something, but for real trustworthy information NO WAY!!

It is almost like an oral history now, it changes with every person that contributes to it.

I didn't read any other responses cuz you hit a hot button on this with me. Oooooh I do not like Wikipedia can ya tell?

_____________________________

*Unless I cite a source it is MO.

~ ssssh. i think i've just found freedom. ~

(in reply to FangsNfeet)

Post #: 11

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 3:28:44 AM

puella

Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline

Wiki is a peeve of mine as well, as well as people using it as the only 'facts' they have to back up their assertions. I reckon it to those who use 'science papers' funded by special interest lobbying group, in a very small anomalous areas as opposed to peer reviewed and approved data which of course, is the basis for real scientific theory.

_____________________________

We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom...... The Simpsons

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." ...Ambrose Bierce

"Don't you oppress me!"....Stan/Loretta

(in reply to cjenny)

Post #: 12

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 4:10:58 AM

KatyLied

Posts: 13029
Joined: 2/24/2005
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

I love wiki, it's quick and easy. It's only one reference resource among many. If you are a scholar, go to the research library.

_____________________________

“If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things.”
- Albert Einstein

(in reply to puella)

Post #: 13

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 4:30:03 AM

puella

Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline

It has nothing to do with time and has everything to do with how factual the content is. You do not need to spend hours in the library to find facts. I have no beef against wiki, but it really can not credibly cited as a credible source of bald fact. I stopped really putting any references to wikipedia when I started finding many many inconsistencies and false documentations listed in an 'encyclopedia' site. It is no different than not using my gossipy scandal mongering older sister as any kind of basis for forming an opinion on mutual acquaintances.

_____________________________

We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom...... The Simpsons

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." ...Ambrose Bierce

"Don't you oppress me!"....Stan/Loretta

(in reply to KatyLied)

Post #: 14

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 5:47:00 AM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

It is almost like an oral history now,

Except with accountability and audit functions.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to cjenny)

Post #: 15

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 6:20:43 AM

KatyLied

Posts: 13029
Joined: 2/24/2005
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

quote:

It has nothing to do with time

It does for me. It's a search engine I added to my mozilla firefox. It's quick and easy to use it to look stuff up. But most of the stuff I look up isn't that important, so it doesn't bother me that it's a site that can be edited by anyone.

_____________________________

“If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things.”
- Albert Einstein

(in reply to puella)

Post #: 16

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 6:29:59 AM

mixielicous

Posts: 1283
Joined: 4/6/2006
From: Boston area, Massachusetts
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetnsensual

Actually from what I've seen of wikipedia is that the people have to cite their sources and back up their claims. Even then, people can debate their claims, causing their to be little notes at the top of the page saying things like "This page reads like it's an essay or opinion, discuss this in the boards" or "This page lacks citations, make citations" or whatever. Personally, I'm not betting my life or putting high stakes on the information I gather from the site so it seems official enough for me hehe.

exactly, anything can be disputed. i dont take the things i read on there to heart, but i do recall it being one of the first places i saw the terms Master and slave.

_____________________________

"lets just say he's a few prawns short of a galaxy"

(in reply to sweetnsensual)

Post #: 17

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 6:31:10 AM

WilliamWizer

Posts: 223
Joined: 3/19/2007
Status: offline

It's only a starting point and another source of information but you are right, I would be foolish to use the wikipedia as the only source of (des)information.

Granted. there's a lot of useful information at the wikipedia but for each small piece of useful info there are ten or twenty big pieces of wrong information. the best thing of the wikipedia are the links to other related places.

_____________________________

There's only two rules for a sub:
- she can do anything her Master didn't forbid her.
- she only needs to do what her Master told her to do.

(in reply to KatyLied)

Post #: 18

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 6:35:29 AM

mixielicous

Posts: 1283
Joined: 4/6/2006
From: Boston area, Massachusetts
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WilliamWizer

It's only a starting point and another source of information but you are right, I would be foolish to use the wikipedia as the only source of (des)information.

Granted. there's a lot of useful information at the wikipedia but for each small piece of useful info there are ten or twenty big pieces of wrong information. the best thing of the wikipedia are the links to other related places.

oh man, they do have great links lists!

_____________________________

"lets just say he's a few prawns short of a galaxy"

(in reply to WilliamWizer)

Post #: 19

RE: Wikipedia? - 3/22/2007 6:49:50 AM

kinkyATL

Posts: 13
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Is it just me or do others realize that Wikipedia is where anyone can put in a word, phrase, or topic and tell what it means?

In other words, anything in Wikipedia, has a high potential of having been made up. This includes the meaning and orgin of the topic in question. I can easily put in a bunch of BS about something and then say "Hey, look at Wikipedia and I'll show you I'm right."

So please remember that Wikipedia is not a good source for trying to prove a point.

So you are complaining about Wikipedia being a poor reference source for a post in a post that does not contain any references at all. And the scenario you propose as an argument for the veracity of your point of view involves intentional deception. I think it is a fallacious argument for a couple of reasons:

1. Unless the article is unpopular, changes to it will be noticed by others and if they are blatantly false or unsupported, removed or the article reverted.

2. Wikipedia has a policy of requiring information to be sourced and referenced. It is an encyclopedia and therefore by definition not a primary source. You are always checking references, right?

3. Analysis of Wikipedia shows that it is accurate. An article ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html ) in Nature reveals that inaccuracies in article reviewed between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica were comparable. The facts just don't back up your tacit assertion that Wikipedia is unreliable. (Or rather more unreliable than say a commerically publish encyclopedia that does not accept general submissions.)

(in reply to FangsNfeet)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

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

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094