NationStates Jolt Archive

Many of us have long recognized the glaring flaws of an open source encyclopedia. Yet, many people insist on using wikipedia as if it were a legitimate source. The world is finally starting to notice the danger of this:

http://www.cnn.com/video/

(scroll down to the SCI-TECH section and see "wikipedia facts debate")

Meh. No source is 100% perfect, even if you're using a paper encyclopedia it shouldn't be your only source. This isn't something new, just something people have forgotten.

Meh. No source is 100% perfect, even if you're using a paper encyclopedia it shouldn't be your only source. This isn't something new, just something people have forgotten.

There is a big difference. While an encyclopedia may not be 100% perfect, it is much closer than wikipedia. There is a big difference between 90% and 30%, it isnt as simple as saying "meh, no source is perfect". The source that is 90% correct is quite reliable, the source that is only 30% correct is nearly useless.

i learned my lesson with wikipedia. i wrote a paper for class and used it as one of my sources. i thought my professor was going to murder me with his red pen...

Meh. No source is 100% perfect, even if you're using a paper encyclopedia it shouldn't be your only source. This isn't something new, just something people have forgotten.
I agree... totally, no need to bother typing out your sentiment all over again.

The point being, even if it were only 1% correct thats still a useful source of alternative information.

Another of the wikipedias function which will be increidbly useful in the future, is that it doucments trends in the internet, not just the obvious but also in obscure internet religions and phrases. it records a lot of thigns that are just not recorded alsewhere, and in fifty years time we'll be glad of it.

Other sources have their facts checked by others, Wikipedia is just any person posting what they believe is accurate with no accuracy check.

Other sources have their facts checked by others, Wikipedia is just any person posting what they believe is accurate with no accuracy check.
All you have to do is check out the Wikipedia definition of "swiftboating" to figure that one out.

All you have to do is check out the Wikipedia definition of "swiftboating" to figure that one out.

Here I hoped I'd never have to hear about the Swift Boat Veterans again. Should remove it just to get rid of that annoyance.

I would trust Wiki for the basic facts of something, anything beyond that lies in the realm of specialist publications.

If you avoid anything politically charged, wikipedia is great. I have a casual interest in science, so I read a few things like that on there. If I have doubts on the accuracy of something, I check the sources cited within.

I would trust Wiki for the basic facts of something, anything beyond that lies in the realm of specialist publications.I wouldn't. I know a few people who regularly bounce through Wikipedia making small changes that make even the basic facts wrong.

...even if you're using a paper encyclopedia it shouldn't be your only source.

It shouldn't be a source at all.

I look things up in Wikipedia all the time. However, upon finding an article, I immediately scroll down to the bottom of the screen, find the list of references, and then visit those webpages or get those books from the library. I also read Wikipedia articles in order to find keywords and other specialized vocabulary that can assist my research in an appropriate academic environment.

I don't think I buy the "anyone can write anything they want so Wikipedia is untrustworthy" argument, though. This is true of any media. Whether one is reading Wikipedia, or reading an academic source in the local university library, one must always approach information with skepticism, and one must always confirm information by comparing with different sources. The author is not immediately trustworthy or accurate simply because he got a book published or (claims to) possess a degree of some kind.

Oh, and when referencing magazines or journals, always look for the statement describing how the periodical in question is "peer reviewed" or "refereed." If no such statement exists, proceed immediately to the nearest exit in a calm and orderly manner.

More Wikipedia madness:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,69759,00.html

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

i learned my lesson with wikipedia. i wrote a paper for class and used it as one of my sources. i thought my professor was going to murder me with his red pen...
Rather a serious wake-up call, I would think. I use to rail against using Wikipedia as a source, but finally gave up because so many were using it. Lately, I've noticed a significant drop-off in use of the Wiki as a source on NS, which gives me hope that the message is finally sinking in: when you allow anyone to post anything they like about any subject, what you get is a constantly changing, largely unreliable source.

i learned my lesson with wikipedia. i wrote a paper for class and used it as one of my sources. i thought my professor was going to murder me with his red pen...

My professor warned the class beforehand. Big trouble if we dared use it as a sourse!

Vandals stick to a few well known, popular, politically sensitive, or contemporary issues. If you are looking for a quick fact about a neutral and harmless issue you are interested in but is generally under the radar or interest of malicious vandals, like what is the 2nd Maxwellian equation or who was the 5th Capetian monarch of France, Wikipedia is the fastest source and far more accurate than "accurate enough."

Rather a serious wake-up call, I would think. I use to rail against using Wikipedia as a source, but finally gave up because so many were using it. Lately, I've noticed a significan drop-off in use of the Wiki as a source on NS, which gives me hope that the message is finally sinking in: when you allow anyone to post anything they like about any subject, what you get is a constantly changing, largely unreliable source.

yeah your right. i dont see any problem using it to get basic information, but i wouldnt use it as a source; or at least, not anymore :p

Rather a serious wake-up call, I would think. I use to rail against using Wikipedia as a source, but finally gave up because so many were using it. Lately, I've noticed a significan drop-off in use of the Wiki as a source on NS, which gives me hope that the message is finally sinking in: when you allow anyone to post anything they like about any subject, what you get is a constantly changing, largely unreliable source.

Referencing Wikipedia within the context of casual conversation is probably not a problem. When I link to Wikipedia, I'm not typically trying to prove or provide evidence for anything, so much as I'm just pointing out some extra information that someone might find interesting. Like was said above, so long as the issue addressed by the article isn't politically charged, one can usually find useful information as well as lists of links and other resources.

When I was reading this, I couldn't help but think that it sounded an awful lot like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but someone already beat me to it. (http://www.slate.com/id/2117942)

I know a few people who regularly bounce through Wikipedia making small changes that make even the basic facts wrong.

Why would they do that?

Vandals stick to a few well known, popular, politically sensitive, or contemporary issues.
The problem is, most fact checky people stick to those same issues. I used to have a running game where I'd find the most obscure out of the way page possible, make an obvious vandalism to it, and then count how many days it took someone else to fix it.
Longest total I ever had was about 2-3 months before someone realized that I had announced that some lesbian chick died while having sex with a scorpion.
That's also when I quit, how the Hell can you top 3 months of a blatant lie without anyone catching you up on it?

The problem is, most fact checky people stick to those same issues. I used to have a running game where I'd find the most obscure out of the way page possible, make an obvious vandalism to it, and then count how many days it took someone else to fix it.
Longest total I ever had was about 2-3 months before someone realized that I had announced that some lesbian chick died while having sex with a scorpion.
That's also when I quit, how the Hell can you top 3 months of a blatant lie without anyone catching you up on it?


Obscure's no fun. Best example of Wikipedia vandalism I ever saw managed to last for more than a month despite being spread all over the place by word of mouth. Someone had made a teensy weensy change to the article on Free Republic (a notorious online forum, and home of "freepers"). No changes to content, no ludicrous claims, he just added an external link callled 'The Truth About Free Republic' that directed users to a page full of cocks.

The problem is, most fact checky people stick to those same issues. I used to have a running game where I'd find the most obscure out of the way page possible, make an obvious vandalism to it, and then count how many days it took someone else to fix it.
Longest total I ever had was about 2-3 months before someone realized that I had announced that some lesbian chick died while having sex with a scorpion.
That's also when I quit, how the Hell can you top 3 months of a blatant lie without anyone catching you up on it?

I can't decide which is more immature... Doing it, or boasting about it.

Obscure's no fun. Best example of Wikipedia vandalism I ever saw managed to last for more than a month despite being spread all over the place by word of mouth. Someone had made a teensy weensy change to the article on Free Republic (a notorious online forum, and home of "freepers"). No changes to content, no ludicrous claims, he just added an external link callled 'The Truth About Free Republic' that directed users to a page full of cocks.

Speaking of sources, do you have any way to substantiate that story? If it's true, I want more... but I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.

Eh, Ive found Wikipedia to be okay on history, thought I always cross check it with my AP Euro book and Time Life History of the World books. But it hasnt steered me wrong yet.

Rather a serious wake-up call, I would think. I use to rail against using Wikipedia as a source, but finally gave up because so many were using it. Lately, I've noticed a significant drop-off in use of the Wiki as a source on NS, which gives me hope that the message is finally sinking in: when you allow anyone to post anything they like about any subject, what you get is a constantly changing, largely unreliable source.

What is difficult about condemning Wikipedia, however, is that it is very accurate on many subjects. There are many difficult questions of law that Wikipedia does an excellent job of summarizing correctly.

Wikipedia is also good when it provides source links for what it says -- so you can check for yourself that Wikipedia is accurate.

EDIT: I would add that Wikipedia is often more accurate than other sources one finds on the internet. Much of the internet is pure garbage, but people cite to it anyway.

I can't decide which is more immature... Doing it, or boasting about it.

Agreed. Both are asinine.

I can't decide which is more immature... Doing it, or boasting about it.
It was immature, and I was in 10th grade at the time, so it was also to be expected.
Its not a boast anymore then those ex-cons who tell people how to thief-proof their houses are boasting. I'm merely pointing out that you can make an outrageous claim on wiki, and it can ride for months before being repaired. What if the change I had made was a smaller one, fudging some other details to make a believable, though completely wrong, version?
It might still be there. That was my point.

I wouldn't. I know a few people who regularly bounce through Wikipedia making small changes that make even the basic facts wrong.

Then why don't you execute those people ?

Meh. No source is 100% perfect, even if you're using a paper encyclopedia it shouldn't be your only source. This isn't something new, just something people have forgotten.

Very true. All sources must be looked at critically. Some are always more reliable than others.

I would add that Wikipedia is often more accurate than other sources one finds on the internet. Much of the internet is pure garbage, but people cite to it anyway.

but other sites are written by a single person and therefore are inherently better than wikipedia, where entire groups of interested people can write any damn thing they please...

What EXACTLY is wrong with the Wiki? All this hype because one guy goes on, sees his article being horribly off? Does he not see the big, BOLD Edit this page at the top of articles? Sheesh, people.

The Wikipedia has at least 10,000 active users and 600 active admins (I'll join this latter group this Friday, apparently). We revert any wrong thing on sight. People need to calm down.

but other sites are written by a single person and therefore are inherently better than wikipedia, where entire groups of interested people can write any damn thing they please...

I disagree - the multiple people aspect allows for a very basic peer reviewing; which makes it better than the article on the internet written by an unidentified individual.
Of course, one should a priori place more (but not infinite) trust in e.g. a science article posted on the website of an established physicist/journal than in the stuff in wikipedia - even though that was only written by 1 person.

but other sites are written by a single person and therefore are inherently better than wikipedia, where entire groups of interested people can write any damn thing they please...

Why does it follow that a site written by a single person* is inherently better?

*most sites aren't written by a single person, are they?

I disagree - the multiple people aspect allows for a very basic peer reviewing; which makes it better than the article on the internet written by an unidentified individual.
Of course, one should a priori place more (but not infinite) trust in e.g. a science article posted on the website of an established physicist/journal than in the stuff in wikipedia - even though that was only written by 1 person.

"Exactically!" said the Caterpillar.

I agree... totally, no need to bother typing out your sentiment all over again.

The point being, even if it were only 1% correct thats still a useful source of alternative information.

Another of the wikipedias function which will be increidbly useful in the future, is that it doucments trends in the internet, not just the obvious but also in obscure internet religions and phrases. it records a lot of thigns that are just not recorded alsewhere, and in fifty years time we'll be glad of it.
Agreed a lot of its power comes from describing things conventional encylopedia's do not

I disagree - the multiple people aspect allows for a very basic peer reviewing; which makes it better than the article on the internet written by an unidentified individual.
Of course, one should a priori place more (but not infinite) trust in e.g. a science article posted on the website of an established physicist/journal than in the stuff in wikipedia - even though that was only written by 1 person.

pardon my unmarked sarcasm. i find the anti-wikipedia arguments to generally be so self-evidently silly that i forget that people actually do honestly make statements equivalent to mine.

Many of us have long recognized the glaring flaws of an open source encyclopedia. Yet, many people insist on using wikipedia as if it were a legitimate source. The world is finally starting to notice the danger of this:

http://www.cnn.com/video/

(scroll down to the SCI-TECH section and see "wikipedia facts debate")

I warned everyone of this false source years ago. Live and learn!

Holy fucking god arnburg I count 18 duplicate posts!
I knoticed the glitch too but wow

I warned everyone of this false source years ago. Live and learn!

"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit on a hot stove lid again - and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore". -Mark Twain.

Wikipedia is generally reliable for basic information and is highly accurate in some areas.

So the source attacking wikipedia for false information was it-self a false source?... That would be irony...

"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit on a hot stove lid again - and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore". -Mark Twain.

Wikipedia is generally reliable for basic information and is highly accurate in some areas.
Agreed
Specialy in non standard sort of information
The stuff that does not normaly appear in standard ecylopedias
Specialy things in popculture and technology

I mean I would not use it as the end all but it deffinatly is a good source to get a general idea about a topic to learn how to approach it better

pardon my unmarked sarcasm. i find the anti-wikipedia arguments to generally be so self-evidently silly that i forget that people actually do honestly make statements equivalent to mine.

Apologies, but I still have "Terrisfight" and the numerous people believing everything it said fresh in mind..

So you've heard that you shouldn't believe everything you read, right?

Wikipedia can be very useful and convenient, but if you trust it unfailingly, that's really your own fault. I don't remember reading anything on the Wikipedia main site that says everything on there is true or reliable. They don't pretend it is. They do their best, but they can't cover every base--you should be wise enough to approach it with a healthy air of scientific skepticism.

I quite like Wikipedia and hope it sticks around. A few weeks ago, I was auditioning for a Bertolt Brecht play, so I used it to learn some basics about Brecht, his plays, his theory of alienation, and epic theater. The information on Wikipedia was readily available and also lead me to other information. I didn't use Wikipedia as my only source, but it was a fast and convenient way to pick up some basic information.

Last week, I read Beckett's Waiting For Godot. Wikipedia quickly brought me information on Beckett, his colleagues, and the Theater of the Absurd movement and how it related to existentialist thought. It gave me useful links to find deeper and more scholarly information. Some of the stuff on Wikipedia was very helpful in reading and understanding portions of the play, techniques used by Beckett, etc.

Last night, I read Stoppard's The Invention of Love for a class. It is a play chock full of historical characters from Oxford and England during the second half of the nineteenth century. Information quickly available on Wikipedia gave me basic background on a lot of these characters--Ruskin, Pater, Jowett, Labouchere, Harris, and Stead, to name a few--and shed a lot of light on just what was going on between them in the play. From the context of the play, I could tell that the information I was getting from Wikipedia was fairly accurate (for example, the article about Stead mentioned him buying a 13-year-old girl to create publicity for the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, an event also mentioned by Stoppard in the play).

Wikipedia is not a source you should be using for academic papers. Nobody has suggested it is. Wikipedia is, however, a very convenient source of basic information about any topic. This information is often reasonably accurate, but it certainly can't be trusted in all cases. The links provided by Wikipedia to other sites are very useful if you are interested in fact-checking or delving deeper into a topic.

pardon my unmarked sarcasm. i find the anti-wikipedia arguments to generally be so self-evidently silly that i forget that people actually do honestly make statements equivalent to mine.

Ah. Now you are making sense. Whew.

There is a big difference. While an encyclopedia may not be 100% perfect, it is much closer than wikipedia. There is a big difference between 90% and 30%, it isnt as simple as saying "meh, no source is perfect". The source that is 90% correct is quite reliable, the source that is only 30% correct is nearly useless.
Yeah, those aren't fictional statistics. :rolleyes: A paper encyclopedia that was only 90% correct wouldn't sell a single copy, and if Wiki were only 30% correct no one would bother using it. Both are very good, neither is 100% perfect, and anyone using an encyclopedia -- electronic or paper -- as a primary source deserves to pull back a bloody stump. It really is that simple.

Holy fucking god arnburg I count 18 duplicate posts!
I knoticed the glitch too but wow

18 is correct. It's nice to see that we agree on someting!

Yeah, those aren't fictional statistics. :rolleyes: A paper encyclopedia that was only 90% correct wouldn't sell a single copy, and if Wiki were only 30% correct no one would bother using it. Both are very good, neither is 100% perfect, and anyone using an encyclopedia -- electronic or paper -- as a primary source deserves to pull back a bloody stump. It really is that simple.

It is true that one should be more wary of Wikipedia than, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, however.

Particularly on political issues and/or controversial issues, Wikipedia can be quite wrong and/or slanted.

So the source attacking wikipedia for false information was it-self a false source?... That would be irony...

LOL! That's why we each believe what we wish to believe to be the truth, regardless. Did you know that we are actually living on Mars and not Earth? A small mis-calculation from our ancestors of a distant and obscure past. Have schools started teaching this yet?

It is true that one should be more wary of Wikipedia than, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, however.

Particularly on political issues and/or controversial issues, Wikipedia can be quite wrong and/or slanted.


Absolutely! That is the first thing I noticed right off the bat.

If you choose any one topic you will find that most people are not experts on that topic. This is self evident. Most people are experts on only a small number of topics (or nothing at all). By Wikipedia's own figures there are 13,000 active contributors and 1,800,000 articles in 100 languages. Let us pretend that language is not an issue (although it is). That means that for each article to be written by someone who is an authority on the topic, we have to assume that each of those 13,000 contributors is an expert in about 139 different things. Isnt it more likely that each of those 13,000 people is only an expert in about 3 things and therefore wikipedia contains about 39,000 authoritative entries and 1,761,000 amateurish entries? This doesnt even take into account the fact that the experts get drowned out by the amateurs because disagreements are settled by the majority and the majority are not experts. No matter how you run the numbers, they just dont add up to anything but garbage.

Particularly on political issues and/or controversial issues, Wikipedia can be quite wrong and/or slanted.
Although, with articles like that they're usually marked with a warning about it's neutrality.

we have to assume that that each of those 13,000 contributors is an expert in about 139 different things. Isnt it more likely that each of those 13,000 people is only an expert in about 3 things and therefore wikipedia contains about 39,000 authoritative entries and 1,761,000 amateurish entries?

Eeehm.. you are now assuming that every subject is equally complex and requires much study to be discussed adequately for an encyclopedia. That is nonsense. Many "articles" are small, dictionary like entries. Others treat basic concepts of a much larger field, say physics. While it is true that someone who has spent 20 years of his/her life studying every aspect of Newtons laws could probably write a more in-depth article about that subject than a professor specialised in string theory, it is obviously not true that the article the professor would write would be worthless. In fact, the 20-year research article would probably be better suited for a journal than an encyclopedia.

Viewed like this, a few 1000 "specialist" subjects per individual becomes a lot more realistic. Where these people would find the time to write is another question.

If you choose any one topic you will find that most people are not experts on that topic. This is self evident. Most people are experts on only a small number of topics (or nothing at all). By Wikipedia's own figures there are 13,000 active contributors and 1,800,000 articles in 100 languages. Let us pretend that language is not an issue (although it is). That means that for each article to be written by someone who is an authority on the topic, we have to assume that each of those 13,000 contributors is an expert in about 139 different things. Isnt it more likely that each of those 13,000 people is only an expert in about 3 things and therefore wikipedia contains about 39,000 authoritative entries and 1,761,000 amateurish entries?

ignoring the fact that there aren't only 13,000 total contributers, your math has a fundamental problem. there aren't 1,800,000 general topics, there are 1,800,000 pages. let's say somebody is an expert in evolutionary biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology). this means that they would also be an expert (by any encyclopedia but a specialist one's standards) on most of the pages that are linked to within that article, and many of the pages linked to from those articles. in the case of evolutionary biology as a category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Evolutionary_biology), this runs well into the hundreds of articles, since said expert will also have useful things to say about the articles of both the sub-subcategories and the larger category of biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Biology). oh, and they will probably have things worth saying in other scientific articles of an even more general nature.

and since the actual number of total registered wikipedians has topped 600,000, you problem doesn't seem like much of one at all really.

I have to admit, I'm always wary of wikipedia. That's why I joined it: to make it better. Or at least to make sure if it was going to be biased, it was going to have my own bias too.

Many of us have long recognized the glaring flaws of an open source encyclopedia. Yet, many people insist on using wikipedia as if it were a legitimate source. The world is finally starting to notice the danger of this:

http://www.cnn.com/video/

(scroll down to the SCI-TECH section and see "wikipedia facts debate")


'bout time.