Trust Wikipedia? - Page 4

xoxoxoBruce · 11-30-2006, 08:09 AM

Welcome to the cellar, bobkolker.

ferret88 · 11-30-2006, 04:44 PM

[quote=Aliantha] It's a good place to go and get a broad understanding and then move on to more formal documentation.[quote]

I chose the third option and I think that really catches the why. I figure there's a lot of opining and repeated hearsay on wikipedia.

ferret88 · 11-30-2006, 04:46 PM

and some outright crap.

Flint · 11-30-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferret88

and some outright crap.

It can get posted there, but does it stick?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

In this article: deliberate (and subtle) deceptions were corrected within three hours.

DanaC · 11-30-2006, 05:44 PM

I have to say, I've found Wiki to be pretty good on most historical stuff. I have been experimenting with it recently since this thread started: when I am researching a topic, I do my usual level of research using the suggested texts and other stuff I find in the library, then I go on wikipedia and see if it takes account of the various arguments and controversies over various interpretations. Thus far, I have found it to be good at pointing out in broad strokes those areas of controversy and debate and then giving suggestions for further reading which take account of this.

11-30-2006, 06:36 PM

The third selection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

come on Ibram, get with it. americans are stupid, lazy, fuckers who are utterly unreliable. americans = wikipedia.

Americans are stupid huh?
That is why no one uses our technology for anything like pharmaceuticals, military, agriculture, they never come here to get educated, for medical research or procedures, we don't lead the world in space research and development... nope, nothin' wez just a bunch a' idjuits.

It kinda' bothers me that I'm enjoying laughing my ass off at you right now.
But, it is not really my fault, all the best humor is based in irony, you being an idiot and all.:p

lookout123 · 11-30-2006, 09:33 PM

i'm not sure if you missed the sarcasm in my post or if i'm missing the sarcasm in your post... eh - whatever.

11-30-2006, 09:35 PM

I did not miss yours... you did miss mine, though it is serious for those to do feel that way; there are more than a few.

trilateral · 11-30-2006, 10:58 PM

I see no reason why wikipedia is not trustworthy... especially given that the content posted there is monitored by a group of individuals committed to keeping it clean and reliable

11-30-2006, 11:25 PM

Suuuuurrrrreeeee it is. I have seen some blatantly incorrect articles and information from there.

Clodfobble · 12-01-2006, 05:54 PM

But then again, isn't blatantly incorrect better than very subtly incorrect?

Tonchi · 12-01-2006, 06:11 PM

I have found Wikipedia to be extremely useful in locating or pinning down events or people. It gets you into the ballpark, and by reading the entry you will learn enough to be able to discuss the subject with reasonable intelligence. HOWEVER: any resource which is written by the "public" is subject to the interpretations and biases and outright agendas of the writer, so you are well advised to cross-check any facts before quoting them in your own work. From personal experience, I know that the entries about the number of records sold by Thalia is absolutely false and unsupported by real data. I also know that former California congressman Richard Pombo, a real slimeball who we are well and joyfully rid of now, had many false and misleading statements on his own entry and those for subjects he has most famously meddled in (such as selling off the national forests to private interests), and that not even an hour after he was defeated he was trying to block changes on Wikipedia. Fortunately his adversaries were prepared in advance and blocked him from access. So no, I would not recomment Wikipedia as a sole resource, but it is a good point to start.

View Poll Results: Do you trust Wikipedia?
As much as any other source.	18	51.43%
I take it with a grain of salt.	15	42.86%
Not as far as I can throw it.	2	5.71%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

11-30-2006, 08:09 AM	#46
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Welcome to the cellar, bobkolker. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

11-30-2006, 09:33 PM	#52
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	i'm not sure if you missed the sarcasm in my post or if i'm missing the sarcasm in your post... eh - whatever. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

12-01-2006, 06:11 PM	#57
Tonchi Victim of gravity Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Hiding in plain sight Posts: 1,412	I have found Wikipedia to be extremely useful in locating or pinning down events or people. It gets you into the ballpark, and by reading the entry you will learn enough to be able to discuss the subject with reasonable intelligence. HOWEVER: any resource which is written by the "public" is subject to the interpretations and biases and outright agendas of the writer, so you are well advised to cross-check any facts before quoting them in your own work. From personal experience, I know that the entries about the number of records sold by Thalia is absolutely false and unsupported by real data. I also know that former California congressman Richard Pombo, a real slimeball who we are well and joyfully rid of now, had many false and misleading statements on his own entry and those for subjects he has most famously meddled in (such as selling off the national forests to private interests), and that not even an hour after he was defeated he was trying to block changes on Wikipedia. Fortunately his adversaries were prepared in advance and blocked him from access. So no, I would not recomment Wikipedia as a sole resource, but it is a good point to start. __________________ Everything you've ever heard about Fresno is true.

11-30-2006, 04:44 PM	#47
ferret88 (This space left intentionally UN-blank.) Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 604	[quote=Aliantha] It's a good place to go and get a broad understanding and then move on to more formal documentation.[quote] I chose the third option and I think that really catches the why. I figure there's a lot of opining and repeated hearsay on wikipedia.

11-30-2006, 04:46 PM	#48
ferret88 (This space left intentionally UN-blank.) Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 604	and some outright crap.

11-30-2006, 05:44 PM	#50
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	I have to say, I've found Wiki to be pretty good on most historical stuff. I have been experimenting with it recently since this thread started: when I am researching a topic, I do my usual level of research using the suggested texts and other stuff I find in the library, then I go on wikipedia and see if it takes account of the various arguments and controversies over various interpretations. Thus far, I have found it to be good at pointing out in broad strokes those areas of controversy and debate and then giving suggestions for further reading which take account of this.

11-30-2006, 09:35 PM	#53
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	I did not miss yours... you did miss mine, though it is serious for those to do feel that way; there are more than a few.

11-30-2006, 10:58 PM	#54
trilateral Person Who Has Posted Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2	I see no reason why wikipedia is not trustworthy... especially given that the content posted there is monitored by a group of individuals committed to keeping it clean and reliable

11-30-2006, 11:25 PM	#55
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	Suuuuurrrrreeeee it is. I have seen some blatantly incorrect articles and information from there.

12-01-2006, 05:54 PM	#56
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	But then again, isn't blatantly incorrect better than very subtly incorrect?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)