Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Dark_Convoy, Mar 6, 2007.
I really like this quote from the article:
That is because the Encylopedia Britannica doesn't have entries for Dragonball Z, Superman, Smurfs, or even Transformers.
The world is a wonderouse place. Even dropouts can accomplish things.
I hope this doesn't damage Wikipedia's sterling credibility.
Wikipedia content is fraudulent?
My faith in the internet has been rocked, next thing you know there will be websites that soley consist of a man stretching his anus or a fat woman discharging bodily fluids.
The printed word can at times be no more credible than Wikipedia. A certain former New York Times reporter would like a word with you.
But I believe everything on Wiki
Or gems like Owen Lafave, Ryerson Inc., or the invaluable Furry Fandom.
However, my personal favorite is anal wink.
I love Wikipedia, much as I dislike the culture on it. Still, as long I don't ever see their foolishness, I don't care. The site is a great source of information, you just have to put everything you read into the BullshitFish program in your head before taking it as fact. Hell, sometimes the arguments on the discussion page are more enlightening than the actual article.
This is exactly why I don't let my students us Wikipedia as a research source.
Well i also hope this doesnt remove Wikpedia, I use it almost everytime in school, as a matter of fact I used it to look up the differences between Antidote and Anecdote....lol....just to prove a teacher that he didnt know what he was talking about.
It's a real shame when people look down on Wikipedia for stuff like this. I agree that, yeah, this hurts its credibility, but Wikipedia has an incredible wealth of content that is either factually correct or, in some cases, awfully close. The entertaining thing about Wikipedia is how it's become an easily-reliable backbone for the reporting industry, who use the site ad nauseum for a one-sentence historical anecdote about people, places and things. Wikipedia gets used a lot by engineers, too, as there are a lot of fantastic cursory explanations about basic physics principles, mathematical formulae, standard circuits, weight systems, etc. It's hard to get that stuff wrong* and the sad thing is that THERE IS A WHOLE DAMN LOT of it on Wikipedia. However, no one will ever know that, because they're too busy trying to flood the fucking "African Elephant" article with a many-month-late Colbert joke.
Now, as with most news issues like this, it's easy to kinda ride with the tide and say, "Oh yeah, fuck wikipedia," as that's the dominant consensus. However - and be honest - if you're sitting in front of the computer and you need a bunch of different contextual information in order to make short references or historical notes in your work, are you going to leave the computer and search for a big stack of encyclopedias? Likely not. What's the first resource that comes to mind? Encarta? I'd find that hard to believe. Wikipedia has stapled itself - recently - as a buzzword that's hard to avoid when you connect the words "internet" and "reference," so I'd be hard-pressed to believe someone saying "Oh no, I don't use wikipedia, it's full of lies."
*I.e., it's hard to put incorrect information into Wikipedia articles on any of the math & sciences, as it gets corrected an awful lot...and if the information is not corrected, it gets disputed a lot.
Wow. Thats sad. I wish some people could get off their high-horse and recognize Wikipedia as the valuable resource that it is. Sure, fact checking is necessary if one is unsure about the validity of the content, but ignoring and just plain baning the use of this resource just reeks of insanity and/or major elitism.
"Zomg! Some things are not right!!111" Boo-hoo. Neither is printed media. Ive seen enough shady stuff in print media that I know for a fact is deceitful, incorrect, or an outright lie, that I don't have as much faith in "professional" sources either.
I have a paper coming up about that involves the evolution of video games and the hardware needed to run them. Wikipedia is the only place Ive found that contains large collections of the information I need without being spread around on 12 different pages. Although my paper is not exclusively from Wikipedia, a fair amount of it is. I also simply wouldn't be able to compile so much information without making a huge nightmare for myself with all my sources and having a two, three, or four paged works cited page. Why should I work harder when I can work smarter?
No printed encyclopedia has ever identified uncle sam as a KFC mascot.
No printed encyclopedia would have an article about RPG Maker, much less identify it as a tool that only allows people to make games about the columbine shootings.
No printed encyclopdia has ever had an article about President Batman.
For these reasons, wikipedia cannot be trusted. ignore the articles, and scroll right to the bottom and click the source links. Boggs never said that his students couldnt do that. But if students are allowed to use wikipedia itself as a source, they can edit the article themselves to have it say whatever they want it to, and then cite that. that would be a disaster.
So, wait wait wait...tell me with a straight face and unwavering confidence that the articles on Convolution, Rectifiers, the Valsalva Maneuver, and diodes are, without a doubt, wrong. Basic Wikipedia articles might be worth avoiding for the very reason you pointed out - a student could edit the source - but just because Wikipedia published an article on "President Batman" doesn't mean it can't be trusted.
...and even then, you have to be a registered user of Wikipedia and put your edit past their evaluation team! Flubbing a wiki article is NOT a simple process of "I'll just rewrite some BS and I'll be set." Your edit may be gone as soon as you refer to the BS and hand it in to the teacher!
No, but history textbooks used in American public schools have asserted that:
-Sputnik was a nuclear missile
-Napoleon won at Waterloo
-United States troops conducted the Bay of Pigs invasion
...among other blatantly erroneous things.
Yes. So long as you realize that you may be getting a biased version of the facts, because Wikipedia does not work how the people running it claim it works. Like anything else on the internet, it has devolved into a popularity contest, with the most popular people among the moderation and administration community having authority over which facts are presented and in what fashion.
It's really not much different in that respect from an ordinary encyclopedia, except that it portrays itself as different.
While Wikipedia's editing process isn't perfect (because like Phy said, it has become, to an extent, an e-popularity contest), it is difficult to mispresent many of the hard math/science articles. I go there first when there's a medical term/condition/etc. I don't know, because many other sites that pop up on the first Google page are research or specialist related and not very useful for a student.
For controversial articles, enough users get involved that between the actual article page and the discussion page (and sometimes the history page), you can get an idea of the various perceptions of a topic, and which kinds of subgroups hold those perceptions. Understanding various social consensuses of a topic can be a valuable as understanding the actual facts of a situation, especially in an information-driven society like our, where perception (at times) translates to reality. That's not necessarily a good thing, but it can't be denied or ignored either.
There's a president Batman entry?
I take Wiki with a pinch of salt, while I know theres a lot of poop on there there's also a lot of decent accurate information too.
Wikipedia is a mixed bag. It's a great starting point for a quick reference or getting a fundamental understanding of something, however you've got to pay attention as there are many mistakes on there. One of the main problems is that Wikipedia can be editing by any old idiot, and some more obscure topics could have false information go by unnoticed pretty easily. Of course no student should ever cite Wikipedia in any capacity. If you're really lazy, just go to the external sources and cite them.
i...dont care either way.
dont think ill ever use anything that i need wikipedia to vouch for me.
Separate names with a comma.