Using Wikipedia as a source

[FreeChile]

I noticed that some articles on Wickipedia are almost vervatim with their corresponding articles at Encarta or Britanica on-line. I wonder who is copying who sometimes.

 

[luchog]

I noticed that some articles on Wickipedia are almost vervatim with their corresponding articles at Encarta or Britanica on-line. I wonder who is copying who sometimes.

Considering that Encarta and Britannica both have large paid staffs with extensive credentials, and an exhaustive review process that results in changes being made only after a significant period of time; it's quite obvious that any plagiarism is on the part of Wikipedia contributors.

 

[luchog]

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.

How much of this applies to Wikipedia contributors?

There're a few articles that I know for a fact contain erroneous information (guess how I know). It's been two weeks so far, and I'm still not seeing any corrections made by these PhDs with access to all the scientific papers.

Oh, and I have at least 5 friends and aquaintances with PhDs, and easily three times that number with Masters' in various subjects.

 

[Jeff Corey]

They have been telling me to go to the "sandbox" when I try to edit their Wikipedia entry. My last attempt was a caveat that most teachers don't accept Wikidia references in scholarly articles.
I didn't add, unless they are unfit teachers.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

They have been telling me to go to the "sanbox" when I try to edit their Wikipedia entry. My last attempt was a caveat that most teachers don't accept Wikidia references in scholarly articles.
I didn't add, unless they are unfit teachers.

How is Wikipedia inferior to other encyclopedies ? Because it's on the Internet ? Methinks someone has a technology complex.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Methinks you don't know what goes into compiling a real reference.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Update. My attempt to modify their Wikipedia defintion to add that teachers don't accept the source in scholarly papers was deleted by some dork called Chowells as "nonsense" and "vandalising".

 

[Ducky]

Update. My attempt to modify their Wikipedia defintion to add that teachers don't accept the source in scholarly papers was deleted by some dork called Chowells as "nonsense" and "vandalising".

So it seems that criticisms will not be tolerated on the website.

 

[geni]

Update. My attempt to modify their Wikipedia defintion to add that teachers don't accept the source in scholarly papers was deleted by some dork called Chowells as "nonsense" and "vandalising".

That would be the claim that "It should be noted, however, that teachers at all levels, ranging from high school to graduate education, do not accept Wikipedia references in scholarly papers."

Yes?

"It should be noted" is editoralising (and doesn't really flow well).

"however" is likely to anoy the grammer nazis don't use it

"that teachers at all levels, ranging from high school to graduate education, do not accept Wikipedia references in scholarly papers."

Is americano centric and uncited. You are trying to insert edits without dissucussing them on the talk page which isn't going to work.

Consider if someone inserted:

"It should be noted, however, that teachers at all levels, ranging from high school to graduate education, think the George Bush is an idiot"

Into our GWB article I would revert them without a second thought.

 

[geni]

Update. My attempt to modify their Wikipedia defintion to add that teachers don't accept the source in scholarly papers was deleted by some dork called Chowells as "nonsense" and "vandalising".

The messages on your talk page are just the test templates. The wording isn't personal.

 

[geni]

How much of this applies to Wikipedia contributors?

Some (access to databaes is quite high due to the number of uni students.

There're a few articles that I know for a fact contain erroneous information (guess how I know). It's been two weeks so far, and I'm still not seeing any corrections made by these PhDs with access to all the scientific papers.

That is a result of haveing too many articles.

Oh, and I have at least 5 friends and aquaintances with PhDs, and easily three times that number with Masters' in various subjects.

So your bar budies should have a fair chance of getting things right at least in thier subject fields.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Has anyone done any studies or research on the accuracy of Wikipedia (and of course the same question about Britannica & Encarta)?

That's obviously a tough question, hard to say how accurate Wikipedia is as a whole.

But one can get a "feeling" on how trusty it can be as a reference source by checking out facts about which we have good and independant knowledge. It occured to me to make a search for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The account is very accurate, it goes down to many details such as names, dates, events, numbers, opinions, etc., with great accuracy. Of course that doesn't guarantee that it is free of errors, but it gives a sense of security, by mere extrapolation.

 

[geni]

That's obviously a tough question, hard to say how accurate Wikipedia is as a whole.

But one can get a "feeling" on how trusty it can be as a reference source by checking out facts about which we have good and independant knowledge. It occured to me to make a search for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The account is very accurate, it goes down to many details such as names, dates, events, numbers, opinions, etc., with great accuracy. Of course that doesn't guarantee that it is free of errors, but it gives a sense of security, by mere extrapolation.

The problem is to do a worthwhile test at least 100 articles would need to be looked at.

 

[luchog]

That is a result of haveing too many articles.

Actually, it's more likely the result of having a completely open contribution format, and an insufficient (read: nearly non-existent) quality and credential standard, and fact-checking and peer-review process.

 

[geni]

Actually, it's more likely the result of having a completely open contribution format, and an insufficient (read: nearly non-existent) quality and credential standard, and fact-checking and peer-review process.

No. Things that are regularly visted tend to be more facturaly correct than things that are not visted much. This suggests the wiki modle works. Remember wikipedia is only 4 years old. It is already the only encyopedia of any significance on the web.

 

[Freakshow]

No. Things that are regularly visted tend to be more facturaly correct than things that are not visted much. This suggests the wiki modle works.

Actually, I think it suggests that the model doesn't work. What you are saying is "Its okay for article to be inaccurate, as long as they are articles that aren't viewed often."

 

[emperorchaos]

Actually, I think it suggests that the model doesn't work. What you are saying is "Its okay for article to be inaccurate, as long as they are articles that aren't viewed often."

I contribute to Wikipedia on occasion myself. And most of the inaccurate articles I've come across tend to be facts pertaining to obscure things, in particularly, music.

Like the article of Chris Broach, who is a friend of mine, is missing a lot of data concerning other bands of which he has been a part. He'll be touring here again in November, and I plan to ask him what he'd like me to update. After all, he knows about himself more than anyone else.

And if you don't know who Chris Broach is, and you like music, GO LISTEN TO BRAID!

Other than that, I think many of the articles are correct, even if they aren't visited as frequently as others.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

So the Wikipedia model is inferior because people make mistakes or omit things ? Wow, you sure don't get the point, do you ? That's about as thick-headedly stupid as someone who claims science is inferior to religion because scientists make mistakes.

 

[geni]

Actually, I think it suggests that the model doesn't work. What you are saying is "Its okay for article to be inaccurate, as long as they are articles that aren't viewed often."

No what I'm saying is that it is a work in progress. Britannica has been around for over 2 centures. We have been around for only ~4years

 

[Freakshow]

No what I'm saying is that it is a work in progress. Britannica has been around for over 2 centures. We have been around for only ~4years

But it will always be that way. Until someday a process is put in that has articles reviewed by multiple experts on the subject BEFORE they are published and available for viewing by the public. If that day never comes, this will always be a problem.