For those of you who like to use wiki as a source

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Sep 17, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
  2. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the FNC article ...

    Eric Barbour, a critic of Wikipedia who recently co-wrote a book on the site, told FoxNews.com, “Current Wikipedia administrators tend to be young males who don't write any content for it and love to fight amongst themselves.

    "To them, Wikipedia is a giant video game, not an ‘encyclopedia.’ ”

    Perhaps someone can tell when there ever was anything "encyclopedic" about Wikipedia? Tell me when it was not a "giant video game." It has been a giant waste of Internet space from the day it was launched. Slanted, inaccurate, outright lying articles that have little basis in fact and very little editorial oversight. Anyone can post anything, anyone can edit anything. It's was, is, and always will be a joke until the happy day the website goes dark.
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    Well the main reason I posted this is because apparently it is so full of porn.
     
  4. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didn't know that, and thanks for the heads up. But not being a Wiki fan (you couldn't tell, could you?) I wouldn't have stumbled across it anyway, given I never darken the gateways of Wikipedia.
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    It is the title of the article in the op.
     
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    After I retired and got a second degree, the format for formal papers with footnotes, citations, etc had completely changed. We were not allowed to use any source from Wiki. Anyone can add their own opinion or fact to any subject. I have used Wiki to read about some of my ancestors in the family tree I am working on, but that is about it.
     
  7. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I meant, I did not know that before I read the OP. I couldn't have fed off the article you linked if I hadn't read the OP, ya know?
     
    #7 thisnumbersdisconnected, Sep 17, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2013
  8. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,189
    Likes Received:
    611
    Wikipedia is just fine for the hard science stuff--astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry, etc. When you get into historical stuff it can get slanted. Actually, it's incredible how much of it is trivial. How many articles can you have about celebrities or TV shows?
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    I can tell you academia does not find it credible in any area.
     
  10. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wikipedia and a "wiki" resource are two totally different things.

    Also, where do you think information in the encyclopedia, books, news, and various online resources comes from?

    We write it.

    If I felt like it, which I don't, I could tell you where a lot of credible online, quotable, "you may use this as a source" information comes from. Suffice it to say it comes from humans!

    Why does knowing the general age base or that it might come from someone next to you somehow make it less credible? There isn't some mysterious human with a giant brain and giant glasses hovering over the internet somewhere creating reliable sources for the world, magically accredited by only the top five brainiacs of the world. :p
     
  11. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the same reason that getting information from NASA or the JPL about how to launch an earth-orbit payload would be better than asking the guy down the street. Credentials, credibility, and proven knowledge. Those aren't the kind of people contributing to Wikipedia, or any "wiki" for that matter. The opinion expressed that there is a difference between Wikipedia and any other wiki is like saying there is a difference between the desert two miles inside southeastern Utah and the desert two miles inside southwestern Colorado -- the only difference is their location.

    No, but there are qualified academics with the education, knowledge and credentials to speak authoritatively to their areas of expertise. Those people write papers that are peer reviewed, proven scientifically or mathematically, and are then published, with such papers being the source material for the information that shows up in Britannica or other respected published collections of knowledge. That is as opposed to the people contributing to a "wiki" who don't necessarily have those credentials, and certainly don't have to prove they are credible and qualified to speak with authority on the subject they choose to post on the service. Being able to read is not an adequate qualification. You have to interpret what you read, and most contributors to these online sites barely have that as a qualification. Wikis are jokes, and no one should expect them to be credible, authoritative, or even truthful, because they are none of those things.
     
    #11 thisnumbersdisconnected, Sep 17, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2013
  12. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,162
    Likes Received:
    368
    If I have NO idea what something is and want a quick overview (like if someone posted about something called twerking and I didn't know what it was), I'd go to wiki although I take the info with a grain of salt. That's about all i use it for - it's fast and easy. For real info though, I'll use other sources.
     
  13. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    Couple things

    Wiki often links the "offical" website as well as other references as well.

    If I had to write a fromal paper for a coure, I would do it on Wike- and thus use some of the Wike links in the footnotes.

    Second - when Fox News decide to have the females ( I hesitate to use the term lady) on its TV news show wear more modest clothing, I might take the OP more seriously.
     
  14. questdriven

    questdriven
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    33
    True enough, but usually sources are referenced. You could learn something from checking those out.
     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,189
    Likes Received:
    611
    This is how I use wikipedia as well. That and for the episode guide of "Restaurant Impossible." :wavey:
     
  16. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The LADIES on Fox News Channel are no worse, and in most cases much better, than the women on other cable news networks, in that respect.
     
  17. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sometimes the guy or girl down the street or next door, living in the mouse infested apartment, is perfectly qualified. The writers have to live somewhere, right? :thumbs:
     
  18. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Few and far between. And one thing I didn't mention is the fact the wikis don't require anyone to be qualified to do anything. Try suggesting you write an article for Encyclopedia Britannica without credentials and see how far you get. Sorry, Gina, wikis are worthless. Nothing will change that.
     

Share This Page

Loading...