Wikis
Neo-Anarchists
26-03-2005, 04:29
How do you all feel about wikis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki)?
I participate in NSwiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) and Anarchopedia (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page), and I think wikis are great. They allow information to be gathered and put where it can be easily accessed far more easily than having a small team of people designing a webpage, in my opinion.
Wikis kick ass, man. I like their information on various cities of the world, along with some of their music information.
Wikis are great. I do all of my reference from them. In a lot of cases they are more detailed than encyclopedias.
Patra Caesar
26-03-2005, 04:41
I've never really known quite what it was before!:)
LazyHippies
26-03-2005, 05:47
Wikis are excellent for obtaining some quick facts on something you are curious about. But I wouldnt want to use one for serious research. You never know if the people who wrote an entry are experts in the field or if they are people who think they know alot about the subject but really dont (havent we seen many of that type around here).
Neo-Anarchists
26-03-2005, 05:52
Wikis are excellent for looking up something to get some quick facts. But I wouldnt want to use one for serious research. You never know if the people who wrote an entry are experts in the field or if they are people who think they know alot about the subject but really dont (havent we seen many of that type around here).
A good way to verify this is for the wikiarticle's author to provide links to relevant sources at the bottom. Unfortunately, many Wikipedia articles are without links or only have very few, and Wikipedia is probably the biggest. Perhaps eventually that could be changed, though.
in the meanwhile, I find that wikis, while not reliable in and of themselves for serious research, can often be useful in directing you to a source for serious research, as many articles will make mention of real works on the subject.
LazyHippies
26-03-2005, 05:56
A good way to verify this is for the wikiarticle's author to provide links to relevant sources at the bottom. Unfortunately, many Wikipedia articles are without links or only have very few, and Wikipedia is probably the biggest. Perhaps eventually that could be changed, though.
in the meanwhile, I find that wikis, while not reliable in and of themselves for serious research, can often be useful in directing you to a source for serious research, as many articles will make mention of real works on the subject.
Links suffer from the same problem. Internet sites can be written by any idiot with a computer and are often wrong. Real research begins at the library.
Zeichman
26-03-2005, 19:48
I'd reccomend http://www.theowiki.com if anyone wants to lend a hand.
Eutrusca
26-03-2005, 19:58
Wikis are good for getting background information about how others feel about a variety of topics, but are notoriously unreliable as sources. As "open source" vehicles, Wikis are subject to changes without notice by those with an ax to grind.
I can go on Wiki and post anything I like on any subject I want to and the only way it can be changed is by another person making what changes they want to make on that specific topic. It can take considerable time before anyone notices the changes and makes what they consider to be necessary corrections.
How do you all feel about wikis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki)?
I participate in NSwiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) and Anarchopedia (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page), and I think wikis are great. They allow information to be gathered and put where it can be easily accessed far more easily than having a small team of people designing a webpage, in my opinion.
I don't use either of thoes, but I'm a major contributer to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org) and Wikinews (http://en.wikinews.org)
Wikipedia's great. I sometimes practice my German reading their articles.
Nianacio
26-03-2005, 20:06
They're nice in theory, but I've seen quite a bit of nonsense on Wikipedia. I take care of some of it, but sometimes there's so much I don't know where to start.
i'll just smile like i know whats going on :)
Passive Cookies
26-03-2005, 20:26
My Information Retrieval prof did an entire lecture on wikis, he seems to think they're the ultimate encyclopedia of the future. I only ever use wikipedia when dictionary.com's definition of a word/phrase does not suffice...
Goobergunchia
26-03-2005, 20:46
As founder of NSwiki, my opinion is pretty obvious.
And there have been rather lengthy discussions on the Wikipedia mailing list (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/) about verifiablity in Wikipedia. I think that most Wikipedians would recognize that the lack of citations is Wikipedia's greatest problem.
Neo-Anarchists
26-03-2005, 20:49
As founder of NSwiki, my opinion is pretty obvious.
:D
I think that most Wikipedians would recognize that the lack of citations is Wikipedia's greatest problem.
I agree.
The Cat-Tribe
26-03-2005, 20:54
Agin' 'em.
Wikis (or whatever) are the Devil's ...
...fingerpuppets? ... no
...platform shoes? ... no, that's not it
... grocery carts? ...
oh, nevermind. I guess you can go play with them there Wiki-doodles.
Greater Boblandia
26-03-2005, 20:56
Wikipedia has saved my ass on a number of occasions. Furthermore, the excessive amount of links is awesome. I have in the past managed to climb my way from Oedipus Rex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_the_King) to "The Elements" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_%28song%29) in a single sitting.
Wikipedia has saved my ass on a number of occasions. Furthermore, the excessive amount of links is awesome. I have in the past managed to climb my way from Oedipus Rex to "The Elements" in a single sitting.
I just tried it. I got there too. It seems you can pick any two completely unrelated things and work your way from one to the other.