Wikipedia - truth or rubbish?.
Discussion
elster said:
Britannica is only a small library...120,000 articles
Wikipedia is a little bit bigger....1,500,000 articles....thats just the englsih ones.
Wikipedia is a little bit bigger....1,500,000 articles....thats just the englsih ones.
And just some of those absolutely essential articles you can't find in Britannica:
*Nintendo DS Pokemon Diamond & Pearl Super Music Collection
*List of eponyms of airports
*Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
And finally...
*Collection of all naughty pictures in Encyclopedia, gathered together in one handy place!
imbecile said:
elster said:
Britannica is only a small library...120,000 articles
Wikipedia is a little bit bigger....1,500,000 articles....thats just the englsih ones.
Wikipedia is a little bit bigger....1,500,000 articles....thats just the englsih ones.
And just some of those absolutely essential articles you can't find in Britannica:
*Nintendo DS Pokemon Diamond & Pearl Super Music Collection
*List of eponyms of airports
*Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
And finally...
*Collection of all naughty pictures in Encyclopedia, gathered together in one handy place!
To you they may not be...to someone they could be.
elster said:
imbecile said:
elster said:
Britannica is only a small library...120,000 articles
Wikipedia is a little bit bigger....1,500,000 articles....thats just the englsih ones.
Wikipedia is a little bit bigger....1,500,000 articles....thats just the englsih ones.
And just some of those absolutely essential articles you can't find in Britannica:
*Nintendo DS Pokemon Diamond & Pearl Super Music Collection
*List of eponyms of airports
*Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
And finally...
*Collection of all naughty pictures in Encyclopedia, gathered together in one handy place!
To you they may not be...to someone they could be.
But are they encyclopedic?
Don said:
Wikipedia is absolutely excellent.
...and yes before relying on its content to make any major decisions I would verify it - but on almost anything I've wanted to look up there has been some marvellous content.
...and yes before relying on its content to make any major decisions I would verify it - but on almost anything I've wanted to look up there has been some marvellous content.
If I was making a serious decision I'd researc it else where. But for ranting on the internet... Wikipedia is fine
ThePassenger said:
Don said:
Wikipedia is absolutely excellent.
...and yes before relying on its content to make any major decisions I would verify it - but on almost anything I've wanted to look up there has been some marvellous content.
...and yes before relying on its content to make any major decisions I would verify it - but on almost anything I've wanted to look up there has been some marvellous content.
If I was making a serious decision I'd researc it else where. But for ranting on the internet... Wikipedia is fine
checking things you already sort of know is fine. I sometimes get project students who use nothing else but wikipedia, which is a bit of a worry. The fact that the wikipedia articles often cite the primary literature that the students should be reading and referencing is even more of a worry. The trend towards lazy thinking carries on. I blame the left wing media...... and Tony Blair, obviously 
andy_s said:
Great starting point for most subjects, just read with a critical eye for 'opinions', bit like watching Sky news.....
Yeah, that would be the same Sky News that referred to the Iraqis as the bad guys and the Americans as the good guys, beautiful bit of editorial impartiality...
americancrx said:
dilbert said:
I'd say that academics should enforce the idea that the use of Wiki is a bad idea. If you are in academia, it's important not to loose the power of independent research. If for whatever other reason, you want a phase diagram for steel, what's wrong with Wiki?
Once you've drawn a few other ideas together, the power of wiki to extend your thinking in the right direction, and in virtually no time at all is immense. Why should an encyclopedia that you might pay for be any better? Are the experts going to be writing encyclopedias, or are they going to be using their knowledge. I think it's the latter, but they may have time to contribute too.
BTW My middle name is Vanilla!
Once you've drawn a few other ideas together, the power of wiki to extend your thinking in the right direction, and in virtually no time at all is immense. Why should an encyclopedia that you might pay for be any better? Are the experts going to be writing encyclopedias, or are they going to be using their knowledge. I think it's the latter, but they may have time to contribute too.
BTW My middle name is Vanilla!
Edited by dilbert on Monday 8th January 23:02
What's that "Ledeburite" in that diagram? That's the area where Martensite is.
Martensite is not an equilibrium phase..
Size Nine Elm said:
dilbert said:
If you are in academia, it's important not to loose the power of independent research.
Isn't that exactly what academia should be doing?
Oh, you mean lose. I don't suppose Wikipedia has got a Spelling Police section?
I'll tell you what scares me..... Until just then, when I looked it up, I didn't know there was a difference, when writing. It's wierd, because if you had said, loose, and lose I'd have known what you mean. If I had spoken it, you would've understood what I mean. There was/is nothing in my head telling me that it's not written as it is spoken.
The correct thing that you wrote is Lows, so perhaps it could be extended to being Lowsé. So perhaps the pair should be spelled looš and loose. The trouble with that, however, is that you can let lose become so loose that it falls down the loos, and that really is Lowsé.
Did i get "independent" correct? I know always spell that incorrectly.
I used to work for Siemens and it caused major concerns internally that the Wiki listing for Siemens kept getting revised with references and "proof" that Siemens actually supported and helped the Nazi regime during the second world war. Ok, there are a few things that Siemens did, but it was actually libelous some of the comments and on investigation were by a couple of individuals (not from Germany though). Each time it got edited, it was changed back - time and time again....
Even the CEO got involved at one point. But Siemens decided not to get stroppy about it as the PR mess could have been huge.
In general its a good system and does work on a lot of levels. However, as usual, the minority can spoil it for the majority by forcing their own personal views and opinions on the world. When it is taken as the "truth", that is when Wiki becomes dangerous. Lets hope it doesnt get to that point.
Even the CEO got involved at one point. But Siemens decided not to get stroppy about it as the PR mess could have been huge.
In general its a good system and does work on a lot of levels. However, as usual, the minority can spoil it for the majority by forcing their own personal views and opinions on the world. When it is taken as the "truth", that is when Wiki becomes dangerous. Lets hope it doesnt get to that point.
dilbert said:
Size Nine Elm said:
dilbert said:
If you are in academia, it's important not to loose the power of independent research.
Isn't that exactly what academia should be doing?
Oh, you mean lose. I don't suppose Wikipedia has got a Spelling Police section?
I'll tell you what scares me..... Until just then, when I looked it up, I didn't know there was a difference, when writing. It's wierd, because if you had said, loose, and lose I'd have known what you mean. If I had spoken it, you would've understood what I mean. There was/is nothing in my head telling me that it's not written as it is spoken.
Hmm, I pronounce them differently...
lose => "loooze"
loose => "loos"
I've often noticed that many spelling errors are the result of regional and/or personal differences in pronunciation.
weird...
whatever said:
dilbert said:
Size Nine Elm said:
dilbert said:
If you are in academia, it's important not to loose the power of independent research.
Isn't that exactly what academia should be doing?
Oh, you mean lose. I don't suppose Wikipedia has got a Spelling Police section?
I'll tell you what scares me..... Until just then, when I looked it up, I didn't know there was a difference, when writing. It's wierd, because if you had said, loose, and lose I'd have known what you mean. If I had spoken it, you would've understood what I mean. There was/is nothing in my head telling me that it's not written as it is spoken.
Hmm, I pronounce them differently...
lose => "loooze"
loose => "loos"
I've often noticed that many spelling errors are the result of regional and/or personal differences in pronunciation.
weird...
I do not use pronunciation different from that which you use. My (typically lame) point was that if you speak "lose" as it is written, it is pronounced lows. To this end I was unable to differentiate them whilst typing before.
Are you sure that shouldn't be wired? Perhaps even wored!
Edited by dilbert on Friday 12th January 16:24
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff