• 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.

Using Wikipedia as a source

JamesM said:
Is anyone really using Wikipedia like a traditional encyclopedia? I use it for the things that are important to most denizens of the web: pop-culture and geeky tech stuff.

In that regard, it excels.
Click to expand...

I use it for fast reference most of the time; especially when I know a Google search is likely to return hundreds of crackpot website results due to the nature of the search. It's easier to use Wiki as a springboard to information than sifting through endless websites in the hope of finding one with some decent information on it.
 
If anyone is doing serious research, I think using primary sources is indicated.

Otherwise, how does Wikipedia compare to Encarta? I think it is as good, if not better. I've read some horrors in Encarta too, such as claiming that Münster cheese came from Münster in Westphalia. Not even the right country.
 
luchog said:
The biggest problem I have on using Wikipedia as an authoritative source is the credentials of its creators. Reputable, commercial encyclopediae like Britannica use actual academic authorities and established historical documentation as sources; and go through a peer-review process. Wikipedia has no such process, and contributors range from academics to dork kids in their parents basements. There are a number of people who try to establish deliberately fallacious information in the encyclopedia, either for some sort of political or philosophical agenda, or simple vandalism. I know that there have been several large pages I've been unable to access at times due to being locked for this sort of manipulation. I've personally caught a few egregious errors and clearly deliberate misinformation.

While it's true that having such an open format means that errors can be corrected quickly, it's also true that they can also be introduced just as quickly, and may not be caught. Pages can change dramatically on a daily, or even more frequent, basis.
Click to expand...
The sole process behind Wikipedia's progress has been their open-ended synergy, a kind of peer-reviewing procedure on steroids! The Wikipedia community is generally diligent about getting the facts straight and vandals are, from what I've seen, usually quickly taken care of. If you repeatedly vandalize the site, then you get banned, and, if I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia bans by IP address, so it's not as simple as signing up for another account to get back on.
 
I would never cite it in an actual essay, but I would use it as a starting point. The articles do list resources and I can go check them out.
 
Batman Jr. said:
If you repeatedly vandalize the site, then you get banned, and, if I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia bans by IP address, so it's not as simple as signing up for another account to get back on.
Click to expand...

It depends how anoying you were being.
 
Batman Jr. said:
The sole process behind Wikipedia's progress has been their open-ended synergy, a kind of peer-reviewing procedure on steroids! The Wikipedia community is generally diligent about getting the facts straight and vandals are, from what I've seen, usually quickly taken care of. If you repeatedly vandalize the site, then you get banned, and, if I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia bans by IP address, so it's not as simple as signing up for another account to get back on.
Click to expand...
Except that that doesn't seem to work; and facts are not as straight as the community would like to think they are. In fact, it appears that the very premise of Wikipedia has some serious flaws that are only recently being admitted to.

See the article quoted in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1240889#post1240889
 
I had sent a note to Geni a while back about references. No point in rehashing but my question revolved around using a reference in Latin rather than one or more widely acceptable translations. The answer was (Geni, keep me honest here) to the effect that Wikki likes the best references which, in this case presumably meant the Latin text.

I have some major problems with this since latin is not a first language. In attempting to find the reference I discovered that well known translations somehow or other attribute the quote I was looking for to a different chapter of the work than the cited latin text. Major waste of time. Dunno, seems to me that alternative, accessable references should be provided alongside the so called "acceptable" ones. Come to think of it the "acceptable" reference is in fact translated but not by a person of the credentials of those that did, say, the Penguin translation. Net, what is provided suffers from more of an "authenticity" problem than the rejected translations.

Full circle, what makes the projided reference superior. Seems a bit like eliteism to me.
 
The question is:

Will Wikipedia include it's criticisms in the enry on "Wikipedia"?
 
geni said:
What do you mean will?
Click to expand...


Sorry, given the way Wiki works I should have clarified.

I'm wondering if it will be allowed for editors to include the latest criticisms in the media on the site content, or if that will get "edited."
 
fowlsound said:
Sorry, given the way Wiki works I should have clarified.

I'm wondering if it will be allowed for editors to include the latest criticisms in the media on the site content, or if that will get "edited."
Click to expand...

Past critisimism have been included.
 
Wikipedia is often a good place to get an overview of a computer-related matter, when you want to start learning about something with which you are unfamiliar. But beyond that, I don't hold it in high regard. I don't trust a resource that allows any non-expert to make a contribution. It is often entertaining and interesting to read, and I read it often for that purpose. But I wouldn't rely on it as a resource for important work.
 
I like how one person once described Wikipedia to me.

"It's like asking your buddies at the bar about a topic."

Good for a general idea, but anyone trying to cite "buddies at the bar" in a serious research paper probably deserves to.
 
LLJKTechnogeek said:
I like how one person once described Wikipedia to me.

"It's like asking your buddies at the bar about a topic."
Click to expand...

How many of your buddies have degrees? Phds? How many databases of scientific papers do they have access to? how easy are they to correct.

Good for a general idea, but anyone trying to cite "buddies at the bar" in a serious research paper probably deserves to.
Click to expand...

Sod that what is someone doing citeing a secondary source in a serious research paper?
 
I just edited its Wikipedia definition to insert the word "faintly" between academics and praise.
See what happens.
 
Jeff Corey said:
I just edited its Wikipedia definition to insert the word "faintly" between academics and praise.
See what happens.
Click to expand...


You did it as an IP so were were reveted probably without a second thought. There is also the issue that that sentance does not cover general praise wikipedia. It does look like the wikipedia article needs NPOVing again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom