NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally don't see why not. Yeah, anyone can write the articles....but anyone can challenge them too, and most articles have quite a few people fact checking and challenging errors. Plus, you can't just submit a change anonymously...keeping track of who has done what is a great quality control tool. How many print encylopaedias can say the same? They make a mistake and it could be decades before the owner of the flawed copies can afford to get updated versions...and even the electronic encylodpaedias are limited in scope and updates.

Wikipedia is huge. Scholars and experts, laymen, morons...all can help create content...but this does not happen in a vacume, where every submission is taken on face value. Errors occur, but are easily fixed. To me, Wikipedia is a fantastic summary of issues, and I love the links that come with the articles, so that you can follow up on the topic using various sources.

I think this prejudice against Wikipedia is nothing short of elitism. I haven't heard any argument against it that didn't base itself on, 'but ANYONE can write an article!', as though that automatically makes all articles erroneous.

So? Credible source or not?

All the articles I've read are credible, but some (articles on bands) have really dated "information".

I use it to look up simple information (how many people live there, where was that person born) or definitions. For things other than that, such as things requiring deeper analysis, I avoid it.

Of course its credible. Its no different from "The X Encyclopedia" published by Y Publishers Ltd. Just because its free and the contributors are volunteers doesnt make it uncredible, after all publishing houses, editors and profeesional writers all have their prejudices and preconceptions that distort their research. In most ways its better as there is usually references to external sources/sites so you can follwo up and determine the validity of something for yourself.

More credible than FOX.

Oh SHIT I did NOT just go there! ;)

Since anyone can write and rewrite and alter articles, I find Wikipedia to be peer review at its finest. Yes, I find it credible. Just about one of the most credible sources for information in the Universe.

It's as credible as any other encyclopedia, and generally more reliable, especially on cultural phenomena that print references may miss.

However, it still is an encyclopedia, so aside from familiarity and direction, it won't help much with a real argument.

Sometimes it's not credible. There were times when I've altered an article by adding absurd information because I was bored or drunk at the time and it seemed funny to me. I'm sure there are others who've done the same.

Prejudice against Wikipedia? Madness.

I suppose if you're looking something up for a serious reason you'd want to check with other sources... But that's just common sense, and'd be the same if you were using any other encyclopaedia.

Dangerous place though, Wikipedia. You look some simple thing up, but then you follow a link. And another one. And maybe two more from that article... Next thing you know you've wasted three hours...

Sometimes it's not credible. There were times when I've altered an article by adding absurd information because I was bored or drunk at the time and it seemed funny to me. I'm sure there are others who've done the same.

Oh, sure ... we've all done it. Someone usually comes in pretty soon after and cleans up the mess, though. I once put in the Christian section that Baptists make regular practice of eating their dead to gain their strength.

It stayed for about 20 seconds.

yes

So? Credible source or not?

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: meh meh ....

Oh, sure ... we've all done it. Someone usually comes in pretty soon after and cleans up the mess, though. I once put in the Christian section that Baptists make regular practice of eating their dead to gain their strength.

It stayed for about 20 seconds.
Well of course they changed it. Catholics are the ones who eat the flesh of a dead guy.

I use it to look up simple information (how many people live there, where was that person born) or definitions. For things other than that, such as things requiring deeper analysis, I avoid it.
I think you've just given a good definition of what an encyclopaedia is good for...overview, but not deep analysis. Is Wikipedia any different in this regard than any other enclycopaedia?

Sometimes it's not credible. There were times when I've altered an article by adding absurd information because I was bored or drunk at the time and it seemed funny to me. I'm sure there are others who've done the same.
It usually doesn't take long for such errors to be caught though...

I think you've just given a good definition of what an encyclopaedia is good for...overview, but not deep analysis. Is Wikipedia any different in this regard than any other enclycopaedia?

I think it is pretty credible when dealing with issues that are more just reporting of information. I find them to be a bit spurious in their summary of philosophical points of view and sometimes religious points of view.

All the articles I've read are credible, but some (articles on bands) have really dated "information".

Wikipedia does have problems with updates. I think they misjudged how much of a resource it would become.

I think you've just given a good definition of what an encyclopaedia is good for...overview, but not deep analysis. Is Wikipedia any different in this regard than any other enclycopaedia?

That's the thing: neither Wiki nor encyclopedias are credible sources because both are written by non-experts. If you want something credible, get it from Lexis-Nexis. If you want to get a good overview, check Wikipedia. If you want a huge book to whack people with, get an encyclopedia.

I think you've just given a good definition of what an encyclopaedia is good for...overview, but not deep analysis. Is Wikipedia any different in this regard than any other enclycopaedia?

I've found that often it is. Reading some of the articles on subjects I'm well-versed in, there are attempts at processing facts and coming to conclusions that I think are not supposed to be there in an encyclopaedia. Also, there does seem to be a cultural bias toward North-America on it in the English material, as if it were geared toward people of that cultural sphere, and things are "translated" to make sense to them.

I'd personally say, yes & no. Some of it is very credible, on the other hand I have read stuff on it that was just simply wrong information. I suppose it depends on who is writing it.

if you use all the links i think quite a lot of depth is available in some areas comparative to other encyclopedias

I'd personally say, yes & no. Some of it is very credible, on the other hand I have read stuff on it that was just simply wrong information. I suppose it depends on who is writing it.

Yes, exactly the point I was trying to make, only you said it better ;)

Sometimes it's not credible. There were times when I've altered an article by adding absurd information because I was bored or drunk at the time and it seemed funny to me. I'm sure there are others who've done the same.


People don't take to kindly to it when thats done. IIRC, when the asshat known as Pres. Shrub posted a thread condoning such things, he got himself DEATed.

I'm not for one minute suggesting I'm above such antics myself, though I have so far resisted the temptation.


Overall I find Wikkipedia to more useful (because its so easy to use) and equally as reliable as a printed encycolpedia. I think its communal nature makes people feel a fondness for it, and that seems to inspire them to be responsible about ewwhat they add to it, and what and how they edit it. I've only contributed to one article (adding to the Cyanide article regarding its uses...a minor thing) but I must admit, it felt good to be able to share my knowledge in such a manner. Though I'm sure there are know-it-alls who use it to show off and add utter BS to it, the communal editting certainly seems to filter out the BS quite quickly. As many have already said, its simply a reference anyway.

Sure it is. I've used it plenty of times, and I've had no trouble with the information.

I generally think it's credible, though not the best source for certain things. It really is useful for fact checking and getting a basic understanding of something you may have been wondering about.

See a referance to something, just plug it into Wikipedia and away you go.

I would say so. Unlike most encyclopaedias, it is constantly under review, and people who write pages usually have an interest or knowledge in the topic they write about. Pages that may be incorrect or biased are also usually flagged as such until they are repaired.

Mucking up pages doesn't go down very well with the Wikipedia community, and I would assume that most mistakes are quickly repaired.

So yes. It's my first port of call when finding something out before I look at it in depth.

Generally credible. Vandalism's generally farily obvious, and I tend to cross-check things anyway, so there's no great risks in me using it as a source.

It's generally good, except when it comes to science. Their articles on science tend to have outdated information, as well as exaggerating controversies.

Absolutely not.

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66210,00.html

Wikipedia has far more problems then you think. Anyone can be typing up those articles. Even the editors don't have much credibility.

i consider it the equivalent of asking a smart person a question. its usually right.