• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Have you read Wikipedia much?

Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?

Yes

Have you read the entry for your home town?

For the village where I live, and my nearest town

Have you read the entry for your home country?

Yes

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?

Yes

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?

No, I tend to look at imdb for film information

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?

My secondary school no longer exists and has no page. I have looked at the page on the university I attended, though.

Have you edited an article?

No

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?

I don't think so, I can't recall doing so

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?

Yes

Have you read an article about a religion?

Not recently
 
Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?

Yes

Have you read the entry for your home town?

No

Have you read the entry for your home country?

Yes

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?

Yes

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?

Yes, frequently.

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?

Yes, and no, in that order.

Have you edited an article?

Many. A few summers ago I house sat for six weeks and I filled the time writing the first version of many of the articles about military missiles, and a dozen or so of the articles about pron stars.

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?

Yes

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?

Yes

Have you read an article about a religion?

Yes
 
Wudang said:
But that's the problem - if I do find errors in things I know about how can I trust it on the things I know less about.
Click to expand...

Sniff test and Google Fu... though I am inclined to...

Wudang said:
I regard it as being like a knowledgeable pal - useful to bounce a question off on any subject but if it's important I'll check he's right.
Click to expand...

...agree with this fully.
 
I fiind Wikipedia is an excellent source of basic information not a place to do real research. I agree that on non controversial subjects that I know about I have not noticed anything incorrect. I love the way you can look up historical "facts" and jump to other players , places or events.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
TM, in case Earthborn's post was too subtle - if you don't find the information on Wikipedia accurate, you can always sign up and edit content yourself.
Click to expand...

I think it was more a refence to the disorganised style of thinkingman's post.
 
Here's some links that were requested, with quotes

The word on Wikipedia: Trust but verify
Popular online encyclopedia, plagued by errors, troubles educators
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740041/


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/22/wikipedia_vandalism_crackdown/
Jimbo Wales ends death by Wikipedia
Kennedy murder shames online cult
By Cade Metz in San Francisco
On Tuesday afternoon, following a Washington luncheon celebrating the inauguration of President Barack Obama, longtime US Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd kicked the proverbial bucket. At least, that's what happened in Wikiland. In our world, they're still among the living.


10 Questions: Jimmy Wales 3/21/07
How can I persuade my teachers to allow me to use Wikipedia as a legitimate research source?—Kaitlyn Grigsby, Medina, Ohio
I would agree with your teachers that that isn't the right way to use Wikipedia. The site is a wonderful starting point for research. But it's only a starting point because there's always a chance that there's something wrong, and you should check your sources if you are writing a paper.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1601491,00.html


One great source -- if you can trust it
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | July 12, 2004
So of course Wikipedia is popular. Maybe too popular. For it lacks one vital feature of the traditional encyclopedia: accountability. Old-school reference books hire expert scholars to write their articles, and employ skilled editors to check and double-check their work. Wikipedia's articles are written by anyone who fancies himself an expert....

Ross admits to reading and enjoying Wikipedia, and has even gotten ideas there for future Britannica articles. But the absence of traditional editorial controls makes Wikipedia unsuited to serious research. "How do they know it's accurate?" Ross asks. "People can put down anything."
http://www.boston.com/business/tech...7/12/one_great_source____if_you_can_trust_it/


See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign By John Borland 08.14.07
The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organization's net address has made.
Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material to entries, or deleting whole swaths of critical material.
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker

Wikipedia and Beyond
Jimmy Wales' sprawling vision
Katherine Mangu-Ward | June 2007
"Wikipedia does fail sometimes. The most famous controversy over its accuracy boiled over when John Seigenthaler Sr., a former assistant to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, wrote about his own Wikipedia entry in a November 2005 USA Today op-ed. The entry on Seigenthaler included a claim that he had been involved in both Kennedy assassinations. "We live in a universe of new media," wrote Seigenthaler, "with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research-but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects." The false claim had been added to the entry as a prank in May 2005. When Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia about the error in October, Wales personally took the unusual step of removing the false allegations from the editing history on the page, wiping out the publicly accessible records of the error.
"Wikipedia's other major scandal hasn't been quite as easy for Wales to laugh off, because he was the culprit. In 2005 he was caught with his hand on the edit button, taking advantage of Wikipedia's open editing policy to remove Larry Sanger from the encyclopedia's official history of itself. There has been an ongoing controversy about Wales' attempts to edit his own Wikipedia entry, which is permitted but considered extremely bad form. After a round of negative publicity when the edits were discovered, Wales stopped editing his own profile. But in the site's discussion pages, using the handle "Jimbo Wales," he can be found trying to persuade others to make changes on this and other topics."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119689.html

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880
Wales has also repeatedly revised the description of a search site he founded called Bomis, which included a section with adult photos called "Bomis Babes."
 
My rule is that if I read it at Wikipedia, then I research further to prove it accurate. I do this because almost anyone can edit an article there.
 
thinkingman said:
If you go to their general disclaimer, you will find this:

(I would avoid Wikipedia, because of its lack of fact checking and that anyone can edit it with unknown credentials.)
Click to expand...

That's why Wikipedia is a useful tool for getting you on the right track. Let's say I wanna learn about goblin sharks. I read about their diet. Then I check the source provided about their diet and read that.

If it has no source, I take it with a grain of salt.


Edit:

On topic, Yes to all the questions.

But to make my point, I was browsing Wikipedia on Cat Communication in college and edited it to make it more accurate. Now it looks really good seeing it a couple years later with more edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication

When I was browsing it back then, what was there wasn't cited and wasn't inclusive of the reason cats bite. My cats bit to gently remind me to stop petting but also bit affectionately while being pet. I couldn't just pretend to be an expert just cause I had two cats so I provided a source.

If it's just a paragraph about biting with no source, I would think it's not something you should take seriously. But now that there's a valid source, that can be verified.
 
Last edited:
Molinaro said:
Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?
Click to expand...
Not that I can recall.
Have you read the entry for your home town?
Click to expand...
Yes, all four of them!
Have you read the entry for your home country?
Click to expand...
Yes
Have you read the entry for your country's capital?
Click to expand...
Yes (as one of the "home towns" above).
Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?
Click to expand...
I sometime read before seeing a film, but usually not. I'll invariably read it after seeing a film, and usually end up editing it.
Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?
Click to expand...
The ones that have pages, yes.
Have you edited an article?
Click to expand...
Far too many.
Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?
Click to expand...
Very often.
Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Have you read an article about a religion?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Earthborn said:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/qimg]|This article cites some or all of its references or sources without using hyperlinks, which may make the information harder to verify. If the sources are available online, as is often the case for newspapers and academic journals, please help improve this article by adding links to the citations.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Imbox_style.png[/qimg]|This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can.
Click to expand...

That made me chuckle.
 
LadyDamorea said:
My rule is that if I read it at Wikipedia, then I research further to prove it accurate. I do this because almost anyone can edit an article there.
Click to expand...

...though with time a community has developped that more-or-less attempts to ensure the correctness of the information. A self-correcting encyclopedia. Nowhere near perfect but far from being as unreliable as it used to be.
 
MikeSun5 said:
Because anybody and their mom can edit things, wikipedia is like an encyclopedia of MadLibs.

...still a good time waster, though...
Click to expand...


It's fun, the pop culture articles in particular, but on more serious topics.........take it with a ton of salt, particular on controversial topics,where the "facts" change from day to day.
I have to be skeptical about a enclycopedia that ANYBODY can edit, whether they know a damn thing about the topic or not.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
It's fun, the pop culture articles in particular, but on more serious topics.........take it with a ton of salt, particular on controversial topics,where the "facts" change from day to day.
Click to expand...

Controversial topics tend to stay pretty stable simple becuse most of the article text will be a delicate truce that neither side want to change too quickly.

High speed changes are mostly limited to articles covering very current events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom