1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why Wikipedia can't be trusted

Discussion in 'Other Discussions' started by thisnumbersdisconnected, Jun 6, 2014.

  1. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm starting this thread because it constantly comes up with one of our resident communists that Wikipedia is "an accurate resource." There is a mountain of proof that it is not, and I'm posting some of them here.

    The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia

    Wikipedia cited as lacking legitimacy

    The next one bears posting a full link, since it shows an example of what's really wrong with Wikipedia and how its unreliability could never be duplicated with legitimate resource sites and publications. The key fact is, there is no oversight on Wikpedia. Anyone can post any time for any reason with any collaboration being required or editor approving the post.

    Wikipedia is fraudulent in claiming to be an "online encyclopedia" as such a claim implies responsible research, editing, and oversight. Wikipedia has none of those things, and while it might be a source for information that can be followed up on with legitimate research, even that use is highly questionable.

    If students can't use it for research and term papers, why do members here think it is a legitimate source of "proof" for anything? It's not, and should be ignored.
     
    #1 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jun 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2014
  2. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    19,852
    Likes Received:
    1,093
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are well written articles on Wikipedia, you have to look at the references cited and, as you say, do your own research. The thing that bothers me about Wikipedia is it's endless articles about cultural items--pop music, TV shows, movies, celebrities, etc.--that amounts to trivia.

    There are people on BB that have argued that the Russian news source Tass is useful.
     
  3. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably the same ones who claim foreign courts are viable cited sources for SCOTUS justices in rendering opinions. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,299
    Likes Received:
    169
    Wikipedia is a good jumping off point. I look at it less as an information tool, and more as a bibliography tool. Go there, read the article, then use the links provided. One good thing about Wikipedia is that you can rate the articles on accuracy and "readability".
     
  5. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is -- and yeah, I could have expanded on this -- is that many of the sources cited are not links, and good luck finding the articles or books named in the bibliography.
     
  6. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    250
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is probably a reflection of our culture and how misguided so many are on what is important. Remember back in '95 how untold hours spent on the OJ trial. There were other much more important events taken place that were ignored.

    Have you noticed how much news time is wasted talking about celebrities. One thing I appreciate about PBS's News Hour is they do not waste time talking about celebrities, TV shows, etc. They do in-depth analyses of important news items and instead of hiring biased commentators they bring in experts on both sides of the issue and 5 minutes or more instead of the 30 seconds that regular news casts allocate.
     
  7. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    21,029
    Likes Received:
    120
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Weren't you just bragging about how smart you are because of two TV shows ?
    Some report that you can't seem to find but read about in a lefty blog that backed it up ?
    Could you tell us how The Daily Show and the Colbert Report don't "waste time talking about celebrities, TV shows, etc. They do in-depth analyses of important news items and instead of hiring biased commentators they bring in experts on both sides of the issue and 5 minutes or more instead of the 30 seconds that regular news casts allocate.", and how it has made you smarter, in light of the fact that you can't quote the actual report ? Hmm ?










    :laugh:
     
    #7 Bro. Curtis, Jun 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2014
  8. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    21,029
    Likes Received:
    120
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Back on topic, if it's true on Wiki-pedia, it should be easily verifiable elsewhere. Using Wiki as a debate resource is very lazy.
     
  9. annsni

    annsni Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,778
    Likes Received:
    634
    Wiki is handy as a resource to find good articles. Skip the article and go to the sources at the bottom. WAY easier than Google! :)
     
  10. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,299
    Likes Received:
    169
    Google leads to wiki most of the time anyway, lol.
     
  11. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, it's usually the top choice, and sometimes is the first three or four choices.

    If you know how to word your search, you can avoid Wiki and find what you're looking for from a legitimate resource.
     
  12. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    23,776
    Likes Received:
    397
    Faith:
    Baptist
    One other point - we should never rely on a single source - as it could be bias or even wrong- regardless of the source. Yes, even Fox news can get it wrong.

    Just like the Bible - compare Scripture to Scripture.
    Never make one verse a foundation for a doctirne.
     
  13. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biased yes, but rarely is a legitimately researched article "wrong" from the standpoint of publishing erroneous or even fabricated "facts."

    Wikipedia is the exception. You may as well let monkeys post to an online "encyclopedia" if there isn't going to be any pre-publishing oversight. Like the example I posted regarding John Seigenthaler Sr. Britannica or World Book would never have allowed that to see the light of day, but it spent 132 days in full view of the webcrawling public.
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    41,134
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If google leads to it that is a result of two things:

    1. There are enough sites linking to that article

    2. That article in wiki gets lots of hits. Most likely from folks who assume wiki is credible. Probably Obama voters.:laugh: You know like those who said "Obama gonna git me my phone!"
     
Loading...