Wikipedia - truth or rubbish?.
Discussion
Links to Wikipedia pages are often posted in threads on here with posters using the content in support of their viewpoint. It's used as a reference tool and now appears to be as reverred by some as the Encyclopaedia Britannica used to be.
But how accurate is anything on wikipedia?
A lot of it can be edited by anyone. A recent edition of a computer magazine I bought featured a workshop article showing how to do it. Armed with this Numpties guide to Wikipedia editing, it would appear to me that any old crap can be created by anyone.
So, without any detailed knowledge of the topic in question, (which is usually what you were seeking to begin with), how does one begin to sort the wheat from the chaff, or is it all just bollox?
But how accurate is anything on wikipedia?
A lot of it can be edited by anyone. A recent edition of a computer magazine I bought featured a workshop article showing how to do it. Armed with this Numpties guide to Wikipedia editing, it would appear to me that any old crap can be created by anyone.
So, without any detailed knowledge of the topic in question, (which is usually what you were seeking to begin with), how does one begin to sort the wheat from the chaff, or is it all just bollox?
sparkythecat said:
Links to Wikipedia pages are often posted in threads on here with posters using the content in support of their viewpoint. It's used as a reference tool and now appears to be as reverred by some as the Encyclopaedia Britannica used to be.
But how accurate is anything on wikipedia?
A lot of it can be edited by anyone. A recent edition of a computer magazine I bought featured a workshop article showing how to do it. Armed with this Numpties guide to Wikipedia editing, it would appear to me that any old crap can be created by anyone.
So, without any detailed knowledge of the topic in question, (which is usually what you were seeking to begin with), how does one begin to sort the wheat from the chaff, or is it all just bollox?
But how accurate is anything on wikipedia?
A lot of it can be edited by anyone. A recent edition of a computer magazine I bought featured a workshop article showing how to do it. Armed with this Numpties guide to Wikipedia editing, it would appear to me that any old crap can be created by anyone.
So, without any detailed knowledge of the topic in question, (which is usually what you were seeking to begin with), how does one begin to sort the wheat from the chaff, or is it all just bollox?
I'm very skeptical about people who start talking about how inaccurate Wikipedia is. Until Encyclopaedia Britannica said "Yeah, but Wiki is wrong and we're right" people have started to question Wiki more widely.
Lets just say that I'm sure it has nothing to do with Britannica's sales being destroyed. Edited by tinman0 on Monday 8th January 21:59
littlegreenfairy said:
Jon C said:
littlegreenfairy said:
I owe my degree to Wiki.
you finished already, LGF?
I bet you didnt cite it though?
I should have said I owe the bits of my degree that I've got, to wiki!
And in essays I have referenced it!!
A mate of mine (at uni.) referenced it in an assessed essay, lost marks and told in no uncertain terms 'never' to quote from Wiki in an academic essay.
This may well end up becoming the online repository of knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizend
Every article or entry will be reviewed by experts in an attempt to overcome the inherent problems of Wikipedia - it is being founded by one of the founders of Wkikpedia for this very reason...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizend
Every article or entry will be reviewed by experts in an attempt to overcome the inherent problems of Wikipedia - it is being founded by one of the founders of Wkikpedia for this very reason...
2000_celica said:
littlegreenfairy said:
Jon C said:
littlegreenfairy said:
I owe my degree to Wiki.
you finished already, LGF?
I bet you didnt cite it though?
I should have said I owe the bits of my degree that I've got, to wiki!
And in essays I have referenced it!!
A mate of mine (at uni.) referenced it in an assessed essay, lost marks and told in no uncertain terms 'never' to quote from Wiki in an academic essay.
I'd better stop using Wiki for my final year project then. Although I thought it was OK to copy and paste as long as you removed the URL from the bottom of the page??
mikey_p said:
2000_celica said:
littlegreenfairy said:
Jon C said:
littlegreenfairy said:
I owe my degree to Wiki.
you finished already, LGF?
I bet you didnt cite it though?
I should have said I owe the bits of my degree that I've got, to wiki!
And in essays I have referenced it!!
A mate of mine (at uni.) referenced it in an assessed essay, lost marks and told in no uncertain terms 'never' to quote from Wiki in an academic essay.
I'd better stop using Wiki for my final year project then. Although I thought it was OK to copy and paste as long as you removed the URL from the bottom of the page??
Well yeah sure use it, it can be useful
I think actually quoting and citing it is where the issue lies. I'm sure that a good chunk of the stuff is valid and true. However, you can see the universitys point, something that anybody with a web connection can effectivly write whatever they like on can hardly be considered 'academic'! Edited by 2000_celica on Monday 8th January 22:34
I put a reasonable degree of faith into what I find there, but only if:
- the spelling and grammar are right, and it's written in an "encyclopedic" fashion
- the article itself seems to be self-consistent
- the article isn't about anything or anyone too politicised
- the article doesn't have any "warning flags"
- the revision history doesn't show anything too contentious
- the talk page is clean
- there are cited references which I can check.
So, only a few hurdles to jump over
- the spelling and grammar are right, and it's written in an "encyclopedic" fashion
- the article itself seems to be self-consistent
- the article isn't about anything or anyone too politicised
- the article doesn't have any "warning flags"
- the revision history doesn't show anything too contentious
- the talk page is clean
- there are cited references which I can check.
So, only a few hurdles to jump over
tinman0 said:
I'm very skeptical about people who start talking about how inaccurate Wikipedia is. Until Encyclopaedia Britannica said "Yeah, but Wiki is wrong and we're right" people have started to question Wiki more widely.
Lets just say that I'm sure it has nothing to do with Britannica's sales being destroyed.Ahem
Nature did a comparison on Wikipedia vs Britannica, Wikipedia came off rather badly in spite of blatent help for Wiki (giving a summary from Brittanica then giving an error as in wasn't concise enough, etc.). The best description I've heard of Wikipedia was on here a few days ago - 'The online bloke down the pub'.
I think any reference source that I can change is a bad thing.
And just for fun -
Well look what it says about good old Moonbat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M
You can't tell me that isn't all BS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M
wikipedia said:
Working as an investigative journalist he travelled in Indonesia, Brazil and East Africa. His activities led to him being made persona non grata in several countries [citation needed] and being sentenced to life imprisonment in absentia in Indonesia.[citation needed] In these places he also claims to have been shot at, beaten up by military police, shipwrecked and stung into a poisoned coma by hornets. He came back to work in Britain after being pronounced clinically dead in Lodwar General Hospital in north-western Kenya, having contracted cerebral malaria. [1]
In Britain, he joined the roads protest movement. He claims to have been attacked by security guards, who drove a metal spike through his foot, smashing the middle metatarsal bone. His injuries left him in hospital.
In Britain, he joined the roads protest movement. He claims to have been attacked by security guards, who drove a metal spike through his foot, smashing the middle metatarsal bone. His injuries left him in hospital.
You can't tell me that isn't all BS
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff