NationStates Jolt Archive

People on NS keep referring to Wikipedia a source of credible information. It is not. On it's own pages it states the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” and provides the link to the edit page.

Well, if anyone can post, if anyone can edit then anyone can post false, misleading, or factually incorrect information. Even factually correct information posted on the site can be corrupted by anyone. There is little doubt that college professors and even most high school teachers would not accept this site as a credible source.

So, why do you use it as a source here on NS? Why not use credible sources instead?

I don't, unless I know for a fact the information contained therein is factual. Then it just provides an easy source to get information from.

Not aware of the history page on it, are we? If you vandalize the Wiki, it gets set back to normal extremely quickly. You also generally get banned.

people use wiki becaue its the equivalent of asking the smart guy down the hall. most of the time you are just looking for basic info on something, it doesnt need to be 100% accurate. just like "the smart guy" isnt going to be 100% accurate

so people link to rather that writing up the same explanation in their own words.

i dont see a problem with it as long as you arent equating with peer reviewed journal articles.

Wikipedia is a great idea as an easily accessible internet encyclopedia; you will notice that most pages have links to other credible and comparable websites.

Whenever you use an internet resource, you should always save the page to a disk whether it's part of your cache or on a cd (or floppy if it'll fit). Internet pages are constantly being updated and revised, so getting into the habit of having a copy with the IP address that corresponds to the site you used is a great decision to assure that the information you gathered is valid and accountable.
;)

I use it all the time and my teachers haven't said anything.

All knowledge as we see it is based on cultural bias anyways, and peer review can only go so far.

It's easy to use. You just go to Wikipedia, type anything in, and you get info on it. Doesn't matter how correct it is. Simplicity > Accuracy.

A) Usually it is correct.
B) Blatant vandalism is reverted very quickly indeed.
C) Where it is less than accurate, biased or amateurish it posts a label to say just that.

people use wiki becaue its the equivalent of asking the smart guy down the hall. most of the time you are just looking for basic info on something, it doesnt need to be 100% accurate. just like "the smart guy" isnt going to be 100% accurate

so people link to rather that writing up the same explanation in their own words.

i dont see a problem with it as long as you arent equating with peer reviewed journal articles.

So why not use this? http://www.encyclopedia.com/

So why not use this? http://www.encyclopedia.com/

Stale. Stagnant. Equally suspect.

I use it all the time and my teachers haven't said anything.

All knowledge as we see it is based on cultural bias anyways, and peer review can only go so far.

Have you ever used this? http://www.encyclopedia.com/

I don't cite it as a source for my history papers, but it has some great information on all kinds of topics.

People on NS keep referring to Wikipedia a source of credible information. It is not. On it's own pages it states the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” and provides the link to the edit page.

Well, if anyone can post, if anyone can edit then anyone can post false, misleading, or factually incorrect information. Even factually correct information posted on the site can be corrupted by anyone. There is little doubt that college professors and even most high school teachers would not accept this site as a credible source.

So, why do you use it as a source here on NS? Why not use credible sources instead?
Searching is too hard to find obscure bits of information.
Wikipedia is very credible and most articles are cleaned up quickly. They do have people watching the pages.

It's easy to use. You just go to Wikipedia, type anything in, and you get info on it. Doesn't matter how correct it is. Simplicity > Accuracy.

Depends on what you are doing. Accuracy is important in many things. Also Simplicity can = lazy.

So, why do you use it as a source here on NS? Why not use credible sources instead?

because barring online versions of peer-reviewed journal articles, it's rather more credible about a huge range of things than nearly anything else on the internet. it's at least as good as mainstream media articles and other online encyclopedias. and by covering a far wider range of material, 'at least as good' quickly morphs into 'vastly superior to'.

So why not use this? http://www.encyclopedia.com/
Does that site have an entire category for fictional psychopaths? I think not.

Depends on what you are doing. Accuracy is important in many things. Also Simplicity can = lazy.

Exactly. So when one uses Wiki, be sure to check the linked sources. In that way, Wiki is actually superior to many more "secure" sources, because journalists rarely linky their sources. (See Bob Novak.)

In the meantime, since you cry so much about Wiki, I suggest you look into this article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0003DC96-A0E5-1398-A0E583414B7F0000

Since you didn't provide multiple choice, here's my answer to the poll

[x] Yes.
[ ] No.
[ ] It has some good information but isn't a credible source.
[x] All information posted on Wikipedia is suspect.*

*all information everywhere is suspect.

Yes. Wikipedia is a credible source of information. As credible as any other internet based sources.

Depends on what you are doing. Accuracy is important in many things. Also Simplicity can = lazy.
Precisely my point. Students these days, often with the encouragement of administration, think technology > books, so they'll assume anything they see on a professional-looking website is a legitimate source. It's both laziness and ignorance.

I prefer Uncyclopedia (www.uncyclopedia.org) myself!

I prefer Uncyclopedia (www.uncyclopedia.org) myself!

It's hit and miss.

Precisely my point. Students these days, often with the encouragement of administration, think technology > books, so they'll assume anything they see on a professional-looking website is a legitimate source. It's both laziness and ignorance.

It's as equally dangerous to think that books in general are Gospel.

In the meantime, since you cry so much about Wiki, I suggest you look into this article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0003DC96-A0E5-1398-A0E583414B7F0000

[/SIZE]

Bad link.

SCIENCE NEWS
December 09, 2005
Pacifier Greatly Reduces Risk of Sudden Infant Death

Wikipedia's credibility is a tiny step above that of the Weekly World News.

It's as equally dangerous to think that books in general are Gospel.

come on! if somebody took the time to put something in dead tree format, it must be of high quality, right?

It's as equally dangerous to think that books in general are Gospel.

Only if written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. :D ....sorry, couldn't resist....:)

Wikipedia's credibility is a tiny step above that of the Weekly World News.

Personally, I never do any research online. All information on the internet is suspicious. Unlike books, which you can check for footnotes, bibliographies, etc., many internet sites name no sources, and yet are treated as gospel.

Wikipedia's credibility is a tiny step above that of the Weekly World News.
So people do believe that magazine.

Thousands of people modify and use Linux. It is a higher-quality operating system than Windows. People who are too stupid to use it effectively label it or its goals as "unrealistic."

Wikipedia is exactly the same way.

If people find something wrong with Linux, they fix it. If they can't fix it, they bitch and call it "operating system issues."

Wikipedia is exactly the same way.

If people find fault with Windows, guess what? They have to wait until the manufacturer gets around to patching the problem.

A normal encyclopedia is exactly the same way.

Windows' code is not subject to scrutiny like Linux's code is.

A normal encyclopedia is exactly the same way.

So people do believe that magazine.

Well, I did see someone buy it once.

Bad link.

SCIENCE NEWS
December 09, 2005
Pacifier Greatly Reduces Risk of Sudden Infant Death

That's exactly the link I intended, ya big baby!

hee hee hee.

So why not use this? http://www.encyclopedia.com/
because so far it sucks

i put "lash larue" into both sites. your site brought up a bunch of links, none of which looked right (besides if i want links, ill use google) wiki gave me info

i put "angmar" into wiki and it gave me info. your site gave me nothing. not even a link.

i put "puff daddy" into wiki and got info. your site gave me useless links

i put "george washington" into wiki and got info. your site gave me LINKS. the one about george washington wasnt even first. when i clicked on it IT GAVE ME LINKS

im sorry, but if i want links, ill use google, if i want quick basic info, ill use wikipedia.

I use it all the time and my teachers haven't said anything.

me too

Personally, I never do any research online. All information on the internet is suspicious. Unlike books, which you can check for footnotes, bibliographies, etc., many internet sites name no sources, and yet are treated as gospel.

Sigh....Wiki is thoroughly sourced, and you don't even have to go back to the library to check out more books because Wiki provides links...and a lot of them.

No links, probably a bad article. No problem.

Apparently, you haven't, you know, actually visited Wiki to find out for yourself. Some indignant person told you Wiki sucked...and YOU DIDN'T CHECK THEIR SOURCES.

Physician, heal thyself.

Sigh....Wiki is thoroughly sourced, and you don't even have to go back to the library to check out more books because Wiki provides links...and a lot of them.

No links, probably a bad article. No problem.

Apparently, you haven't, you know, actually visited Wiki to find out for yourself. Some indignant person told you Wiki sucked...and YOU DIDN'T CHECK THEIR SOURCES.

Physician, heal thyself.

I've had the (mis)fortune of having been there many times. Many articles either have no sources, or only a few "sources" (usually links to biased websites that, in turn, have no sources of their own).

I've had the (mis)fortune of having been there many times. Many articles either have no sources, or only a few "sources" (usually links to biased websites that, in turn, have no sources of their own).

Well then, that shouldn't stop you from using the well supported articles. Yeah I know, using critical thinking skills is a bitch. It's so much easier to find a website with a bias you agree with and just go with that.

Well then, that shouldn't stop you from using the well supported articles. Yeah I know, using critical thinking skills is a bitch. It's so much easier to find a website with a bias you agree with and just go with that.

I prefer to use non-biased sources for research. And Wikipedia is anything but "non-biased."

That's exactly the link I intended, ya big baby!

hee hee hee.

ROFLMAO :D :fluffle:

I only use Wikipedia when I have other information to back it up, Wikipedia usually features good, easy to understand and concise analysis whereas other sources maybe stale, hard to read, wordy and dificult to navigate. Wikipedia is a good source for presenting facts when its accurate and it usually even has sources built in, but if the source links on the article you want are iffy or missing you should at least have some links of your own to back up wiki.

I prefer to use non-biased sources for research. And Wikipedia is anything but "non-biased."

There ...is...no...such...thing...as...an...unbiased...source.

Therefore, what you are REALLY saying is that you find a source that agrees with your bias, and then label it unbiased.

interestingly enough

i was looking up articles on googlenews yesterday (i think it was relating to the teacher/student sex thread) and one of the newspapers had used wikipedia as a source of information for related cases.

i was kinda surprised.

I prefer to use non-biased sources for research.

examples?

I use Wiki all the time, its great. Just as long as u dont assume everything on there will be correct and use it to back up what u know. Its great for homeworks and revising when you need another point of veiw or to be reminded about something. and with a little bit of common sense you can tell when they are bias or are not giving you the full information.

Also it depends what sort of info you want.

So erm i dunno what to answer in ur poll.

Hmmm i'm babbling

i'll shhh

My friends and I went around editting pages with very funny insights, but they were deleted right away. We got our school IP adress banned from editiing. They're very good at protecting the sight.

I occansionally use it if I can't find anything else, but I always try to find something more credible (that's in general, in II I tend to scan wikipedia without as much care, because it's not like playing a slightly inaccurate rp is that big of a deal). All in all, I try to avoid it if I can.

Wiki is a good place to start looking for information, especially when you do not know WTH it is about.

Stopping at Wiki is a bad thing.

Wiki is a good place to start looking for information, especially when you do not know WTH it is about.

Stopping at Wiki is a bad thing.

Stopping at anything is a bad thing.

That's why I want to smack people who haughtily proclaim that they only use unbiased sources. Because they are, by definition, full of it.

People on NS keep referring to Wikipedia a source of credible information. It is not. On it's own pages it states the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” and provides the link to the edit page. Well, if anyone can post, if anyone can edit then anyone can post false, misleading, or factually incorrect information.


I fail to see how the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia is a liability. After all, any fool can write a book or a paper, so all of the books and papers in all of our libraries can also potentially contain false, misleading and/or factually incorrect information. The only difference between Wikipedia and a book is the speed and ease of publishing.

In fact, the "anyone can edit" feature actually works in Wikipedia's favor. Unlike a book or a paper, if an expert finds an error, it can be corrected almost immediately. Correcting a book is a much longer process, and copies containing the error will always still be out there. As such, Wikipedia is much more accomodating to the peer review and correction process.

At any rate, when I conduct serious research, I always examine and compare claims and facts across multiple sources; I don't care whose name is on the cover, or what kind of academic godliness he or she claims to have. ALL sources are suspect. If I find that a particular claim or fact is maintained across multiple sources, then the probability that this fact or claim is true goes up. If I find that a particular source is not consistant with others in the field, then I throw it away.

Nothing necessarily makes Wikipedia an unrealiable source. As with all published works I encounter, I compare information I find on Wikipedia with other authoritative sources. If the information on Wikipedia is consistent with those sources, then I know that the information is reliable. If the information on Wikipedia is not consistant with other sources, then I throw it away.

In short, the problem has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The problem is with people who do not conduct research with a skeptical attitude.

Edit: and I cannot answer the poll, because it does not contain the correct answer: ALL sources are suspect until shown otherwise.

Thousands of people modify and use Linux. It is a higher-quality operating system than Windows.


Define "higher-quality." If we mean the ability to survive system instability and errors, then absolutely yes. If we mean interface and user-friendliness, then absolutely no. (If only someone could combine the highly developed and user-friendly interface with the strength and robustness of *nix. (http://www.apple.com/macosx/))

Just like Linux, Wikipedia has its advantages (anyone can edit it) and its disadvantages (anyone can edit it).


People who are too stupid to use it effectively label it or its goals as "unrealistic."


I prefer "elitist." :rolleyes:

Yes, I use Fedora Core/Linux as my primary OS.

I use it all the time and my teachers haven't said anything.

All knowledge as we see it is based on cultural bias anyways, and peer review can only go so far.

Try that in my class and you'll get your paper handed back to you asking you to do some real research. No encyclopedia is a good source, as they are broad and full of generalities, and wikipedia has some serious limitations beyond that.

There is a lot of good info on the web, you just have to know where to look. There is even more in the library. An encyclopedia can be a good place to start, to define what you want to look at, but anyone using an encyclopedia as a source obviously hasn't done any real research.

I prefer to use non-biased sources for research.
Sorry, no such creature.


And Wikipedia is anything but "non-biased."

And this makes Wikipedia no different than any other possible source out there.

I thought I'd add this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4520678.stm) to the discussion instead of creating a whole new wiki thread. Plus I don't have a ton of input except to say that if you wanted any yahoo's opinion about something why not just ask about it here, doesn't seem that it'd be that different.

Though I haven't really been using encyclopedias since grade school, and on the net you can usually find more thorough sources on just about anything.

I fail to see how the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia is a liability.
Most people think they know a lot more than they actually do. That's the main problem. The secondary problem is people who purposefully post false information. The third problem is the bias introduced by people who edit something with an agenda (conscious or not).


After all, any fool can write a book or a paper, so all of the books and papers in all of our libraries can also potentially contain false, misleading and/or factually incorrect information. The only difference between Wikipedia and a book is the speed and ease of publishing.

Not at all. A book or article in a real encyclopedia has to pass an editing process. The accuracy of the book or article has to be verified and the quality of the information contained in it must meet certain standards in order for the publishing company to accept it. Of course, this does not count for self-published books which should be approached with just as much scrutiny as wikipedia. Always ask yourself, why would no one but the author be willing to publish this book? The typical answer is because the author is no one. Publishing houses that deal in non-fiction are very reluctant to accept a manuscript from someone who doesn't have the credentials or standing in the community to publish a book on the topic.


In fact, the "anyone can edit" feature actually works in Wikipedia's favor. Unlike a book or a paper, if an expert finds an error, it can be corrected almost immediately. Correcting a book is a much longer process, and copies containing the error will always still be out there. As such, Wikipedia is much more accomodating to the peer review and correction process.

Except that in a book, it is an expert who makes the correction and has to prove it. On wikipedia, a naive person who thinks he knows a lot more than he actually does can easily edit a page written by an expert to make it less accurate. In the case of a dispute, on print media, they will simply seek out other sources and other experts to get to the bottom of it. In the case of a dispute on wikipedia, they resort to a popularity contest. Seeing as experts are few and people who think they know are numerous, it is much more likely that the people who think they know but really dont will win any popularity contest against a handful of actual experts who really do know.

At any rate, when I conduct serious research, I always examine and compare claims and facts across multiple sources; I don't care whose name is on the cover, or what kind of academic godliness he or she claims to have. ALL sources are suspect. If I find that a particular claim or fact is maintained across multiple sources, then the probability that this fact or claim is true goes up. If I find that a particular source is not consistant with others in the field, then I throw it away.

That is good, but only if your sources are good too. Otherwise you end up with a WMD in Iraq situation. Bad sources cross-quoting each other to come to the conclusion that something that was obviously fabricated was true. It wasn't true, one guy belived a bad source and another quoted that guy who was then quoted by another guy who was then quoted by other people, etc. That a certain piece of information is repeated does not mean it is true, it could also mean it is a widespread incorrect belief or urban legend.

Nothing necessarily makes Wikipedia an unrealiable source. As with all published works I encounter, I compare information I find on Wikipedia with other authoritative sources. If the information on Wikipedia is consistent with those sources, then I know that the information is reliable. If the information on Wikipedia is not consistant with other sources, then I throw it away.

The fact that it is written and edited by people who are not experts and that anyone can make "corrections" makes it an unreliable source.

In short, the problem has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The problem is with people who do not conduct research with a skeptical attitude.

It is a bad source to begin with. A bad source has no place in good research. It is irrelevant how many good sources back it up, the fact that it is a bad source means you shouldn't use it to begin with.

I thought I'd add this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4520678.stm) to the discussion instead of creating a whole new wiki thread...
You win the thread.

People on NS keep referring to Wikipedia a source of credible information. It is not. On it's own pages it states the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” and provides the link to the edit page.

Well, if anyone can post, if anyone can edit then anyone can post false, misleading, or factually incorrect information. Even factually correct information posted on the site can be corrupted by anyone. There is little doubt that college professors and even most high school teachers would not accept this site as a credible source.

So, why do you use it as a source here on NS? Why not use credible sources instead?

I don't find that most of wikipedia is accurate.
http://news.com.com/A+little+sleuthing+unmasks+writer+of+Wikipedia+prank/2100-1038_3-5990678.html?tag=st.ref.goo

And former MTV VJ Adam Curry was editing stuff out...

People on NS keep referring to Wikipedia a source of credible information. It is not. On it's own pages it states the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” and provides the link to the edit page.

Well, if anyone can post, if anyone can edit then anyone can post false, misleading, or factually incorrect information. Even factually correct information posted on the site can be corrupted by anyone. There is little doubt that college professors and even most high school teachers would not accept this site as a credible source.

So, why do you use it as a source here on NS? Why not use credible sources instead?

Since it is open sourced, and information can come from just about anywhere, it cannot be considered credible, as there is no effective "control" for reliability and/or accuracy of the information presented. It must all be considered suspect untill backed up by another credible source. Though it generally does act as a good "starting place" for research...

I question anyone who uses it as a reliable source, by itself.