do you take Wiki seriously?

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:11 pm

pipey wrote:

i think the wikipedia is a great tool.
it solves a lot of my problems,even if you disagree with the the information, it gives you enough leads to follow up on your own research.
it gets the ball rolling.
i wonder if the politicians use it,or will try to control it in future?

I promise you wikipedia already has people with various political agendas posting their "2cents" into the entries. it does seem that the mods there are quite quick with spotting things like this though - you often see warnings about how neutral (or not) a particular entry is.

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:49 am

yeah, the amount of Public Policing there is on Wikipedia is quite amazing...and most of the moderators are very aware of agenda driven content

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:20 am

Nickolas Nickleby wrote:

yeah, the amount of Public Policing there is on Wikipedia is quite amazing...and most of the moderators are very aware of agenda driven content

Nature published an independent survey based on random sampling in Dec. 2005. They found Wikipedia to be on par with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica promptly responded with a lengthy rebuttal, and accused Nature of unsound methodology. Nature responded in kind.

Since I haven't read any of it, I won't venture an opinion. The data is freely available, however, so if you feel like it, check it out yourselves.

In any case, encyclopedias are reference works. They only contain source references and third hand information. The former can be skewed by availability of source material, and less frequently by selective sourcing. The latter by ignorance, and less frequently, creative interpretation.

This is the reason encyclopedias are universally banned as source material in academia (in plain English: the reason you can't use them in your school paper).

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

really i think that wikipedia is nothing more than a starting point for information. Sites that are .org or .gov are really the ones that should be trusted.

_______________________________________
"Force is the weapon of the weak"
Did i help you? Give me +1 rep. It makes me look good.

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:29 am

crapshite wrote:

really i think that wikipedia is nothing more than a starting point for information. Sites that are .org or .gov are really the ones that should be trusted.

www.conspiracycentral.org is really trustworthy, for example. As is www.myanmar.com Laughing

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:46 am

crapshite wrote:

really i think that wikipedia is nothing more than a starting point for information. Sites that are .org or .gov are really the ones that should be trusted. Shocked

_______________________________________
"Force is the weapon of the weak"
Did i help you? Give me +1 rep. It makes me look good.

Shock icon 1, you really think that .gov can be trusted???
Shock icon 2, Why don't you put the info you have under the line into your profile, signature?

I do agree with you that wiki should a starting point (after Google), wiki often links me to some great research material on subjects. Smile

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:38 am

I don't take everything that is on wiki as gospel but it is a great starting point and they do provide links to external sites with more information. Smile

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:10 am

For casual fact finding, Wiki is awsome. If I had to write a paper for university for instance, I'd research a bit harder than Wikipedia.

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:00 am

The royal family of Holland changed wiki sections wich stated that a girlfriend of a prince in fact one worked as a high priced hooker with gangster friends.

If they knew what they were doing they would have called Oliver Stone to do a cover-up movie or maybe Micheal Moore he is the new Oliver Stone lately but no they wanted to do it themselfs.

History is not the billboard top 100,unfortunatly wiki is.

If the world thinks 18987 wiki thinks 18987,that its 18986 is of no importance.

The wiki on Nixon;

Quote:

Presidential scholars, both liberal and conservative, generally agree that Nixon presents a special problem when seeking to evaluate and determine his presidential ranking because his foreign policy and domestic policy successes stand in dramatic contradiction to the corruption of his top aides. Political scientist Walter Dean Burnham noted the "dichotomous or schizoid profiles. On some very important dimensions both Wilson and L.B. Johnson were outright failures in my view; while on others they rank very high indeed. Similarly with Nixon." Historian Alan Brinkley said: "There are presidents who could be considered both failures and great or near great (for example, Wilson, Johnson, Nixon)." James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon, "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic President, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"[30] Even George McGovern, eleven years after Nixon defeated him for the presidency, commented: "President Nixon probably had a more practical approach to the two superpowers, China and the Soviet Union, than any other president since World War II. ... I think, with the exception of his inexcusable continuation of the war in Vietnam, Nixon really will get high marks in history.

"both liberal and conservative" ,yes and everybody else remains to be silent.If such a person is rated like that in the usa wiki,the German language Hitler section of wiki most likely has a secondary truth issue too.

Other then this kind of stuff,when i need the info wiki is the first stop but only because my hard copy is in the bookcage and not in reach.

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:08 pm

I believe in wiki. A bit too much I thnk. The informations are given by users afterall. But so far, I have yet to find a flaw (not including spelling-errors) in any of the wiki-posts.
It has been a great help, especially for school-asignments.

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:10 pm

I have noticed many flaws, especially in the articles about the Russian 5.45x39mm M74 round and the NATO 5.56x45mm round. Every now and then when I goto them, each one says they are more powerful than the other...

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:17 pm

Mochtroid-X wrote:

Every now and then when I goto them, each one says they are more powerful than the other...

That's because the users who posted those articles, both have delusions of greatness. Maybe there's even a personal struggle for the "Golden Bullet-Award" of which they are fighting for.

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:46 pm

It doesn't matter anyway, pretty much any 7.62mm rifle round will royally f**k someone worse than those two ever will.

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:16 am

I wouldn't go out and write an essay from the information in it, but I would use it to confirm stuff i already have.

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:53 pm

zakhebeone wrote:

every time i make a topic about wiki it has to turn into an argument about homosexuality. it happens too frequently

Indeed, as that noted Epicurean of all things academic Oscar Wilde himself might have opined: "OOOOOH! Who rattled HER cage?"

Mind you, clever IS sexy, isn't it? Wink