NationStates Jolt Archive

Really, why do people cite Wikipedias as resources?
Does anyone not know that a Wikipedia is made up of contributions by anyone? There is no rule for wether or not the person writing is true, or the person actually knows what they're writing about. I'm sure I could go post in a Wikipedia that the Earth is flat, and someone would cite it somewhere as fact.
A Wikipedia is not an academic resourse, and is not a published resource. Really, I know people in my classes who have failed papers for using Wikipedia articles as their main references, so why keep citing it?
I've been presented with wikipedia articles for so called "Proof" several times here in the past few days, and several hundred times this year from people trying to argue a point.
So really, can some one explain this to me? What's the relevance of posting something from a wikipedia as a "fact"? It makes about as much sense to me as citing Dr.Zeuss for animal Biology and Behavior.

Well, one might make an argument that the open review process makes it potentially more reliable than another encyclopedia as hypothesized by that Wisdom of Crowds guy.

Well, one might make an argument that the open review process makes it potentially more reliable than another encyclopedia as hypothesized by that Wisdom of Crowds guy.


Yes, one could.
But I could also point out, as I have, there is no restriction upon who writes in one. These postings are nothing more then opnions, and rarely are actually academic.
I mean, I get the theory you mentioned, but still, the whole premise behind it makes no sense unless you cite another, more academic, resource. That is my base problem with it, people seem to take Wikipedia as fact. And when a society takes what anyone can say is fact as fact, with no regard to proof, knowladge, experiance, or anything else that is generally considered as a requierment for academic publishing, that society tends to go "down the drain" intellectually.

So again I ask, is there an real reason for it?

This may be true in a topic with little importance, but, a topic where a lot of people view and write about will hardly have any lie, as the first person who see it will simply erase. And when there is an opinion, usually another person comes in and write something like "but, on the other hand..." so, yes, I think it is a reliable source, after all, if you want to go that way, why believe CNN or FOX news? They´re opiniated all right, but do they lie? The fact that they have an opinion don´t make them reliable enough to be quoted?

I'm sure I could go post in a Wikipedia that the Earth is flat, and someone would cite it somewhere as fact.

You could, but then other people would say "damn, some idiot vandalized the Earth article, we'll have to fix it now" and undo it.

I think the theory is that a wiki allows an 'average' of common opinions of knowledge. The idea that only 'facts' should be represented is, imo, flawed. Ideas are relative to cultures, societies etc. A wikipedia is the best way to represent this. If everyone in the western world were to become communists tommorow, a wikipedia article on the economy, or systems of government, for example, would look substantially different to reflect these changing standards. The imperialistic standard of 'facts' being lorded over everyone else by a minority of intelectuals is, in this way, far less realistic than a wiki system, where the average of any ideas can be guaged much more effectively.

This may be true in a topic with little importance, but, a topic where a lot of people view and write about will hardly have any lie, as the first person who see it will simply erase. And when there is an opinion, usually another person comes in and write something like "but, on the other hand..." so, yes, I think it is a reliable source, after all, if you want to go that way, why believe CNN or FOX news? They´re opiniated all right, but do they lie? The fact that they have an opinion don´t make them reliable enough to be quoted?

Um, CNN and FOX do lie. I won't even bother getting into details, but an example is, all those Arabic translations; which I understand from several Arabic speaking freinds, are completely different fro what the origonal speaker says (Espically pertinant on CNN apparently).

Now as for large topics? That's not true in and of itself. 1 million people could compile a topic about what Socialism really is. Now if these 1 million people are composed mostly of people who have only heard of socialism through Capitalist prophghanda, does that make them reliable? And likewise if you switch the perspective.
Large numbers of people doesn't exactly lmake it more reliable, it just means more people have an opnion on it.
Again, 10 million people could review the story of "Starship troopers" but have only watched the movie, whereas 10 people could review it based on the book and the movie... now who's more reliable?

Um, CNN and FOX do lie. I won't even bother getting into details, but an example is, all those Arabic translations; which I understand from several Arabic speaking freinds, are completely different fro what the origonal speaker says (Espically pertinant on CNN apparently).

Now as for large topics? That's not true in and of itself. 1 million people could compile a topic about what Socialism really is. Now if these 1 million people are composed mostly of people who have only heard of socialism through Capitalist prophghanda, does that make them reliable? And likewise if you switch the perspective.
Large numbers of people doesn't exactly lmake it more reliable, it just means more people have an opnion on it.
Again, 10 million people could review the story of "Starship troopers" but have only watched the movie, whereas 10 people could review it based on the book and the movie... now who's more reliable?

NPOV.
Neutral Point of View.
All articles written on Wikipedia have to be done so in an objective manner. If someone writes in the Socialism article "Socialism is bad" someone will come along and delete it. Check out the Talk pages on articles, there are thousands of people dedicated to keeping it fair, balanced and above-all: reliable.

Does anyone not know that a Wikipedia is made up of contributions by anyone? There is no rule for wether or not the person writing is true, or the person actually knows what they're writing about.How do you find out if what the person writes is true? How do you determine if the person knows what they're writing about?

I prefer the Wikipedia. In a conventional encyclopedia, you only get one point of view, that of the publisher. In the Wikipedia, you get many points of view, those of anyone who takes the time to contribute. Wikipedia uses a collaborative process in which controversial facts get labeled as such, and in which the opposition point of view also at hand.

I'm sure I could go post in a Wikipedia that the Earth is flat, and someone would cite it somewhere as fact.Why don't you do so, and report the results? It would be a fascinating experiment. Let us know which pages you altered, if the changes were corrected, and if so, how long those corrections took.

Really, I know people in my classes who have failed papers for using Wikipedia articles as their main references, so why keep citing it?This has little to do with the Wikipedia, and more to do with the person grading the papers. Here in the US, classes are even taught with supoosed 'facts' from the Christian Bible, by government-paid teachers. Teachers are not unbiased evaluators of the quality of information sources. The Wikipedia could be one-hundred percent accurate -- something neither likely nor claimed by the creators of the Wikipedia -- and still cause a student to receive a failing grade.

I've been presented with wikipedia articles for so called "Proof" several times here in the past few days, and several hundred times this year from people trying to argue a point.The concept of proof is rather squirrelly even on a good day. The Wikipedia doesn't claim one-hundred percent accuaracy, it claims to present a "Neutral Point of View". The proponents of the Wikipedia believe that the best approach to maximal accuracy is through the collaborative process, in which disputed facts are simply labelled as such.

What's the relevance of posting something from a wikipedia as a "fact"?What sources do you consider more acceptable than the Wikipedia? Why?

Look, folks. You don't take the average of a bunch of opinions and then declare it as fact and have it accepted as such by any person of any academic or scientific standing. Sources accepted as fact are:
1. Presented by experts in the field. I am going to take something presented by C. S. Lewis in the field of Christian apologetics more seriously than some 18-year old Druid crackpot who hasn't graduated high school yet.
2. Use other reliable sources - for example, in history, we use ancient texts, translations, etc. Physical evidence from people who have directly studied that physical evidence.
3. I am NOT going to use a source that may be altered, erased, or left as an outright falsehood.

I think the theory is that a wiki allows an 'average' of common opinions of knowledge. The idea that only 'facts' should be represented is, imo, flawed. Ideas are relative to cultures, societies etc. A wikipedia is the best way to represent this. If everyone in the western world were to become communists tommorow, a wikipedia article on the economy, or systems of government, for example, would look substantially different to reflect these changing standards. The imperialistic standard of 'facts' being lorded over everyone else by a minority of intelectuals is, in this way, far less realistic than a wiki system, where the average of any ideas can be guaged much more effectively.

Well, yes and no. If you want a resource that reflects a good cross-section of popular opinion, then a wiki is what you need. But if we all became communists tomorrow one would hope that the entries for atomic structure and the classification of butterflies would remain exactly the same. Experience has shown that this is not the case, that in fact genuine facts are frequently twisted, especially by totalitarian regimes, to somehow enhance their ideology. Just look at what the Soviets did to evolution (and the geneticists who promoted it). Hence, quoting a wiki as an objective fact is decidedly unhelpful. And please don't give us any of that banal claptrap about the knowledge of the "imperialistic" west being identical to any other rubbish someone wants to press cultural perogative onto. If all knowledge is of equal value, I pity the software engineer that designed the operating system for the computer you typed your post into, since his or her years of experience and skill are as worthless as some fool who decides mysticism's the flavour of the month. Incidently, it's only people in the imperialist west who believe this sort of stuff; objective knowledge tends to be more highly prized in the places which are supposed to be under a repressing influence, as it usually conferes the possibility of economic advancement. And if you feel your access to knowledge is being restricted by those who "lord it over" you, try going down the local library ;)

Look, folks. You don't take the average of a bunch of opinions and then declare it as fact and have it accepted as such by any person of any academic or scientific standing.Who's declaring the Wikipedia as fact?

What is the relevance of something being "accepted as such by any person of any academic or scientific standing"? Does that acceptance increase the likelihood of something being true? Doesn't such a point of view require that we agree on the reliability of the academic or scientist in question? How do we reach such an agreement?

Sources accepted as fact are:Accepted by whom?

1. Presented by experts in the field. I am going to take something presented by C. S. Lewis in the field of Christian apologetics more seriously than some 18-year old Druid crackpot who hasn't graduated high school yet.What determines who is an expert? I don't believe anyone is saying we should favor the opinions of crackpots; by definition, crackpots are pretty much right out. But determination of expertise or crackpottery is difficult at best. How can you say whether or not C.S. Lewis is an expert in the field of Christian apologetics if you are not an expert in Christian apologetics? How can you say a Druid is a crackpot if you are not an expert on Druidism?

And why did you say "Druid crackpot"? Surely you must be aware of the implications of this juxtaposition of historical enemies. The Christians attacked and killed Druids so often that Druid rituals are, for the most part, lost to history. Your reference to C.S. Lewis as an expert and Druids as crackpots makes it seem like you are favoring Christians.

2. Use other reliable sources - for example, in history, we use ancient texts, translations, etc. Physical evidence from people who have directly studied that physical evidence.How do we determine that ancient texts and translations are reliable? How do we determine that the reports of the people who have studied physical evidence are reliable? For that matter, how do we determine that they have studied any physical evidence? If I read a paper on, say, excavations of a tomb, how do I know the paper isn't completely fictional?

3. I am NOT going to use a source that may be altered, erased, or left as an outright falsehood.Wikipedia doesn't exactly erase things. Something may be removed from an entry's main page, but Wikipedia preserves the record of edits on the history page.

Also, if you're opposed to something being "left as an outright falsehood", wouldn't you be in favor of something being "altered"? How can you be against leaving falsehoods and against alterations at the same time?

Oh shit, you could have posted this a week ago.

Wikipedia sounds pretty communist to me...

:p

Sounds more democratic than most commercial new sources which seem to stress "opinion" than "fact".

I find it's like most encyclopedias - a good general starting point. If you want actual scholarly works, it can point you in the right direction, as most pages cite outside sources.

I'd also add that, beyond Jr. High, and possibly lower high school courses, anyone citing an encyclopedia article in a paper, probably deserves to flunk. Encyclopedias are, by definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encyclopedia), general summaries. They are not scholastic references, and should not be used as such.

I think the theory is that a wiki allows an 'average' of common opinions of knowledge. The idea that only 'facts' should be represented is, imo, flawed. Ideas are relative to cultures, societies etc. A wikipedia is the best way to represent this. If everyone in the western world were to become communists tommorow, a wikipedia article on the economy, or systems of government, for example, would look substantially different to reflect these changing standards. The imperialistic standard of 'facts' being lorded over everyone else by a minority of intelectuals is, in this way, far less realistic than a wiki system, where the average of any ideas can be guaged much more effectively.
The Wiki is a "living" document and changes depending upon how many people post to it. At any given point in time a particular article may or may not reflect what is known to be true.

Wiki is interesting and highly entertaining, but cannont be trusted as a source.

I don't find it funny that people don't trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, I find it funny that people apparently think other sources are inherently more reliable. As if papers, research can't be falsified or incorrect, as if "experts" can't be wrong?

How about this: demonstrate to me that Wikipedia's information directly contradicts the truth. Find an article which is just plain wrong, and cite your own superior sources as to why.

Really, why do people cite Wikipedias as resources?
Does anyone not know that a Wikipedia is made up of contributions by anyone? There is no rule for wether or not the person writing is true, or the person actually knows what they're writing about. I'm sure I could go post in a Wikipedia that the Earth is flat, and someone would cite it somewhere as fact.
A Wikipedia is not an academic resourse, and is not a published resource. Really, I know people in my classes who have failed papers for using Wikipedia articles as their main references, so why keep citing it?
I've been presented with wikipedia articles for so called "Proof" several times here in the past few days, and several hundred times this year from people trying to argue a point.
So really, can some one explain this to me? What's the relevance of posting something from a wikipedia as a "fact"? It makes about as much sense to me as citing Dr.Zeuss for animal Biology and Behavior.

Well, here's a thought. If somebody posts something from Wikipedia and you don't like it..... find a more credible source to refute it with.

I would agree that it may not be the most accredited resource, but there are times when the community has put together a fairly concise entry on a subject. And often there will be supporting external links.


Refusing a source just because you don't agree with it is a pointless exercise unless you can back up your point of view with better.

Why cite anything? If someone has to create a source, then, can't they, too, be biased?

Well, here's a thought. If somebody posts something from Wikipedia and you don't like it..... find a more credible source to refute it with.

and more importantly - use that source to fix the wikipedia article.

wikipedia is a constantly updated peer-reviewed encyclopedia. many of the people posting to it are experts in their fields. if anything, it is more likely to be accurate in the long run than another encyclopedia and is unlikely to become out of date - a constant problem for all dead tree stores of knowledge.

So far, I have to say Emperor Norton has made the best arguments.

To start, nowhere did I say anything abour supposid "real" encyclopedias, and as has already been mentioned, they're not realy good sources either.

What I consider good evidence are peer reviewed academic journals, essays, or papers, which are reviewd by experts, not just anyone.
As well, any primary sources are also considered reliable, since they had direct contact with, or are, the subject. Case in point, I consider an autobiography about someone, and books written about that someone by people who knew them, and by people with at least a masters degree in Psychology as reliable sources, espically over what Wikipedia says, regardless of what it says.

And for note, an expert is defined as someone who has spent years studying that particular subject in extreme detail, and has published a paper in an academic journal.

Again, I reiterate, just because 1000 people think something is true, doesn't make it true. My argument is not at all against matters of opnion (Like say, "Does god exist?" or other things like that). My argument is for things that happened, and that there are actual primary sources for.

because it has some use.

because it has some use.

So does say, Dr.Zeuss, but we don't take his descriptions of animal behavior in childrens books as fact do we?

Wikipedia is highly efficient, because it always pops up nice and early on a google search. And most debate here isn't academic, so you don't really need to worry too much, it might be better to double check stuff, but I really don't think it is all that bad.

Wiki is useful. Certainly not something to use as a main source, but it does provide some good information.

So does say, Dr.Zeuss, but we don't take his descriptions of animal behavior in childrens books as fact do we?
There is a big-time difference between Wikipedia whose intent is to disseminate info, and Dr. Seuss books which are to aid children in learning how to read and provide colorful pictures.

Wikipedia is highly efficient, because it always pops up nice and early on a google search. And most debate here isn't academic, so you don't really need to worry too much, it might be better to double check stuff, but I really don't think it is all that bad.

Unfortunatly, any debate based on non-academic sources isn't a debate, it's a baseless fight. And "efficient" and "correct" are not synonyms, far from it.

And also unfortunatly, when certian facts become the base for an argument, and then someone manages to rebuke those facts with some unreliable internet posting, then what has happened?

Bythe way, I asked three of my Professors today how they would accecpt Wikipedia, none would unless the Wikipedia article was backed up with academic sources (Already mentioned in a previous post). Hence why people in some of my classes failed, they used wikipedia as an academic source. It is not, it is far from it.

Final point I will make with this post, someone said that those who post in wikipedia are usually experts. Prove it, give me names of these experts, what they said, and then their credentials as an expert. All such things are required for an academic source.

Bythe way, I asked three of my Professors today how they would accecpt Wikipedia, none would unless the Wikipedia article was backed up with academic sources (Already mentioned in a previous post). Hence why people in some of my classes failed, they used wikipedia as an academic source. It is not, it is far from it.

Final point I will make with this post, someone said that those who post in wikipedia are usually experts. Prove it, give me names of these experts, what they said, and then their credentials as an expert. All such things are required for an academic source.

you should never use any encyclopedia as a source for any paper being written for professors (except, perhaps a technical one - but even then not really). you ain't in jr. high no more, so encyclopedias are out as a source.

and i didn't say 'usually', i said often. i have a couple reasons for thinking so. firstly, because i personally know some profs that do some work on wiki, and know of others doing so. secondly, because the only people who are going to write articles on obscure topics are those that already know something about them (either as experts or just enthusiasts) because they are the ones that care about them. and if somebody else makes a mistake in an article, one of these people will drop by shortly and fix it.

how's about a test? go on to some wikipedia article and change it to include some factually incorrect information. then time how long it takes to get it corrected.

btw, have you ever seen studies of the number of factual errors that make their way into school textbooks? or dead tree encyclopedias for that matter? some of them are truly shameful. and these books are supposed to be authoritative.

What I consider good evidence are peer reviewed academic journals, essays, or papers, which are reviewd by experts, not just anyone.
As well, any primary sources are also considered reliable, since they had direct contact with, or are, the subject. Case in point, I consider an autobiography about someone, and books written about that someone by people who knew them, and by people with at least a masters degree in Psychology as reliable sources, espically over what Wikipedia says, regardless of what it says.

And for note, an expert is defined as someone who has spent years studying that particular subject in extreme detail, and has published a paper in an academic journal.

Again, I reiterate, just because 1000 people think something is true, doesn't make it true. My argument is not at all against matters of opnion (Like say, "Does god exist?" or other things like that). My argument is for things that happened, and that there are actual primary sources for.

But then again, even with peer review - the "expert" opinion has been known to change.

Heck, if Steven Hawking can admit "hey... turns out I was wrong!", then what makes anyone else with a degree infallible?

So, to put an addendum on your comment, just because 1000 experts think something is true, doesn't make it true either.

As to an autobiography being neccessarily a more accurate depiction of events, I would argue that they will represent the view of events from that person's perception, and perhaps through some rose-tinting for publication purposes. Other parties to the event may have extremely diferent and equally (or more) valid views.

But then again, even with peer review - the "expert" opinion has been known to change.

Heck, if Steven Hawking can admit "hey... turns out I was wrong!", then what makes anyone else with a degree infallible?

So, to put an addendum on your comment, just because 1000 experts think something is true, doesn't make it true either.

As to an autobiography being neccessarily a more accurate depiction of events, I would argue that they will represent the view of events from that person's perception, and perhaps through some rose-tinting for publication purposes. Other parties to the event may have extremely diferent and equally (or more) valid views.

Um, when I'm refering to this stuff, I'm generally talking history. Physics and Math are all theory, so all you CAN go on is the latest stuff. I should have mentioned that one as well in earlier posts.

Autobiographies, humm, did you read my point? I said that I would accecpt the information presented in Autobiographies, as well as books written about said person, who met said person. Meaning you get several peoples views, not just ones. And when you get to things like beliefs, or ideals, I'd think that someone can define their own beliefs and ideals better then some people on the internet.

Also, I stated already that encyclopedias are not accecptable. Why do people keep thinking I stated otherwise?

Why cite wikipedia?
Why not, I ask you?

Why not, I ask you?

Lol, I was waiting for someone to say that.
But seriously, becausethe information is very likely to be innaccurate.

Lol, I was waiting for someone to say that.
But seriously, becausethe information is very likely to be innaccurate.
Yes, however this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki#Vandalism) helps (sorta) to safeguard Wikipedia to an extent, or at least from vandalism

But seriously, becausethe information is very likely to be innaccurate.

is it? that's an empirical claim, and would need some evidence to back it up.

Yes, however this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki#Vandalism) helps (sorta) to safeguard Wikipedia to an extent, or at least from vandalism

Sorta is exactly right. Not definatly.

Anyway, I decided to jump into a Wiki topic I actually know alot about and correct a few minor flaws, I'm gonna see if anyone changes these.

For those who want to know, I corrected some intormation on the Wikipedia page regarding the A7V Strumpanzerwagen. I specificly corrected the part regarding the first tank battle, as only 1 A7V was involved, and not 3 as was previously stated (War recordsof both sides show that, as well as one of the 3 supposidly involved had to retreat due to mechanical failures, the other fell over, and the one that actually did the fighting broke down 2 miles after the fight ended).
PS, the A7V is a passion of mine, I'm currently writing a book detailing everything I can possibly find about the A7V, so I have checked my sources quitewell.

Soooooooooooo.... you decry it as a creible source at the same time as you invest your own time to ensure that it IS accurate.


Interesting.

Soooooooooooo.... you decry it as a creible source at the same time as you invest your own time to ensure that it IS accurate.


Interesting.


Lol, if I investd thast time, I would have trippledthe size of the article. I'm trying an experiment. I'm going to see how long it takes someone to put back the info I corrected. The origonal info was wrong, and I have no idea why it keeps getting perpetuated by books when all documents pertaining to it (War records, eye-witness accounts, and so on) all say what I wrote.
So, let's see how long it takes to be "corrected".

History is shaped by the victor (or those on their side). America excludes many, many events and obscures many others. This is human and everyone does it. No one wants to be seen in a bad light and they will brush history under the rug to do it. The history of America (and any other country around the world) will not be 100% fact in textbooks, peer-reviewed journals or published books by doctors. Sometimes it's not even close. One historian argues that Hitler was gay, yet others argue that he loved his Eva Braun. So which is it? They are not both right. They are both from academic sources! You cannot worship at the altar of a symbol (such as a doctorate), but you have to realize that anything human is flawed and that together through vigilance and constant input we can be the most aware of the world around us.
The credibility of using the Wikipedia as a citation is a moot point. The 'academic elite' deny its significance simply because it harms their 'elite' status. In many subjects there are no more facts, only opinions. It's their choice but outside of university or college, it doesn't have to be yours.
Remember, the earth used to be flat. If you did not agree it is because you were an "18 year old Druid crackpot" and not a Christian believing in the facts of the Holy Bible.

We were always told in high school that if you could find information in three or more sources, it was considered common knowledge and the information would not have to be cited.

Dictionaries tend to use a definition of a word that is accepted by a majority of the experts.

I thought I would throw these two pieces of info into the debate.

I must say I would probably not cite information from wikipedia as the main point of an essay.

That said, it is perfectly acceptable to cite as a source of general information, especially in something like an internet forum.

We were always told in high school that if you could find information in three or more sources, it was considered common knowledge and the information would not have to be cited.

Dictionaries tend to use a definition of a word that is accepted by a majority of the experts.

I thought I would throw these two pieces of info into the debate.


Um.. on the Dictionary point.. Most Descriptivist dictionaries only give the definition as it was when the Dictionary was edited/written. Ocasionally you ger a Perscri[ptivist dictionary which states only what the autors say should be it.

And I don't ever remember getting that lecture in High School, we had to cite everything, otherwise it was plagirism.

Lol, I was waiting for someone to say that.
But seriously, becausethe information is very likely to be innaccurate.


Do you think you could provide us with a couple hundred examples of innaccurate wikipedia pages?

If, you know, it is "likely" to be incorrect, then of the millions of pages that comprise it there should be no problem finding 10 or 50 or 200 that are riddled with falsehood.

Um.. on the Dictionary point.. Most Descriptivist dictionaries only give the definition as it was when the Dictionary was edited/written. Ocasionally you ger a Perscri[ptivist dictionary which states only what the autors say should be it.

And I don't ever remember getting that lecture in High School, we had to cite everything, otherwise it was plagirism.


There is only one dictionary my son, and it is 20 volumes.

There is only one dictionary my son, and it is 20 volumes.

Surely you mean to say that the OED (http://www.oed.com/) is the most respected English language dictionary. Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language and Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language surely rate as dictionaries?
And don't forget, authoritative dictionaries come in other languages besides English. For example the Daijiten (http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/BIB95/ch11.htm#Kokugo) has as many headwords as the OED.

Surely you mean to say that the OED (http://www.oed.com/) is the most respected English language dictionary. Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language and Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language surely rate as dictionaries?
And don't forget, authoritative dictionaries come in other languages besides English. For example the Daijiten (http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/BIB95/ch11.htm#Kokugo) has as many headwords as the OED.


I wasnt, you know, earnestly stating what I believe to be literal fact. ;)