NationStates Jolt Archive

I know it's from a fake newspaper, but (1) it's hilarious and (2) it showcases what is horribly wrong with the concept of Wikipedia. Now I just need to start working on the people who think that blogs are journalism.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

Just so this doesn't get thrown into spam, I'll add a question. Have you ever linked to Wikipedia and then found out later that it was 100% bogus info?

It's nonsense. A study found that Wikipedia was as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

It's nonsense. A study found that Wikipedia was as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Encyclopedia Britannica sucks as well.

It's nonsense. A study found that Wikipedia was as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Generally yes, The only difference is that when an idiot defaces a book with a jumbo crayon it's a little more obvious than some of the clever vandalism you sometimes get on wiki.

It's good for an outline but always check another source.

Ah, so because The Onion writes a satirical piece on Wikipedia we should stop using it. How come Bush is still in office after The Onion wrote "articles" on him then?

It's free, it's usually correct (especially if you come back to articles...falsified info never stays on for very long), it's very expansive. It's made for debate sites like these!

And the articles most likely to be vandalised are protected these days anyways. And where there is debate over content going on, there's a notice on that and interesting discussions to be read.

It's nonsense. A study found that Wikipedia was as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Yeah, I remember seeing this before, and the study was only on science articles. Political articles or historical articles are still subject to "we think we know this is right, so we'll put it in." I'd guess that people don't think they know science better than the scientists, so they don't try to put their wrong info in. Or if they do, it gets caught faster. :-)

Ah, so because The Onion writes a satirical piece on Wikipedia we should stop using it. How come Bush is still in office after The Onion wrote "articles" on him then?
Because Wikipedia doesn't have a Secret Service entourage. ;)

Actually, the study found it a third again less accurate.

As a rough guide to scientific facts and descriptions of the mundane it is fair enough.
But for anything with even a smidgeon of doubt or a plank of space for an opinion and it is only reliable as the nearest person on the street.

I mean, seriously. A source where you can post anonymously? Like you can here? And people think that it is gospel?
At least some people here bother to quote sources and you can track their posts so you can have an idea of their reliabilty, bias, political views, who they are writing for and when they are writing.

Wikipedia is only as accurate as the agenda behind the person who writes the article and, unlike almost any other mediums, it fails every basic test for proving a source useful to gather information from.

Yo Momma linked to Wiki last night!

...And enjoyed it.

This coming from the guy with a the onion link, no less...

Wikipedia is a fine encyclopedia. If someone changes anything to "ERIC IS FAG!!2##@!", someone cleans up after him and if he keeps that shit up his ip is banned. People clever enough to make subtle changes tend to be clever enough not to be that stupid. If they are, whichever changes they make is on an important article and is noticed and dealt with immediately.

Wikipedia-bashers should try to, you know, use it every now and then.

Wikipedia is a fine encyclopedia. If someone changes anything to "ERIC IS FAG!!2##@!", someone cleans up after him and if he keeps that shit up his ip is banned. People clever enough to make subtle changes tend to be clever enough not to be that stupid. If they are, whichever changes they make is on an important article and is noticed and dealt with immediately.



Do you have any reliable sources to back this up or merely the Wikipedia?

Actually, the study found it a third again less accurate.

As a rough guide to scientific facts and descriptions of the mundane it is fair enough.
But for anything with even a smidgeon of doubt or a plank of space for an opinion and it is only reliable as the nearest person on the street.

I mean, seriously. A source where you can post anonymously? Like you can here? And people think that it is gospel?
At least some people here bother to quote sources and you can track their posts so you can have an idea of their reliabilty, bias, political views, who they are writing for and when they are writing.

Wikipedia is only as accurate as the agenda behind the person who writes the article and, unlike almost any other mediums, it fails every basic test for proving a source useful to gather information from.
O I thought most articles had a list of sources. I guess I was wrong.

As do most (of the sensible) posts on this board.

Most entries that I have come across (and I have looked at a few as I had this debate three months ago with two friends) with a smidgeon of opinion-room are as reliable as anything posted on here.

And I, of course, assume that everything posted on here is the absolute, non-agenda driven truth.

As I say. Wiki fails the "Who, why, where and when" test. The fact it passes "What" is only because it is lingually understandable.

O I thought most articles had a list of sources. I guess I was wrong.

Well, of course no one here would actually think of looking at Wikipedia or something silly like that.

As do most (of the sensible) posts on this board.

Most entries that I have come across (and I have looked at a few as I had this debate three months ago with two friends) with a smidgeon of opinion-room are as reliable as anything posted on here.

And I, of course, assume that everything posted on here is the absolute, non-agenda driven truth.

As I say. Wiki fails the "Who, why, where and when" test. The fact it passes "What" is only because it is lingually understandable.

What are you talking aobut exactly?

Wikipedia is a fine encyclopedia. If someone changes anything to "ERIC IS FAG!!2##@!", someone cleans up after him and if he keeps that shit up his ip is banned. People clever enough to make subtle changes tend to be clever enough not to be that stupid. If they are, whichever changes they make is on an important article and is noticed and dealt with immediately.
OK, so the article's over the top, but it's a comedy newspaper. But suppose someone was looking at the Crusades article and said, "No, Jerusalem's on the Mediterranean." They can change the article to reflect that inaccuracy, and it will stay until someone who knows better comes along and changes it back. In the meanwhile, 36 schoolkids just used that article in their paper on Israel and Palestine. 36 schoolkids now have to be instructed that their "fact" isn't.

Wikipedia-bashers should try to, you know, use it every now and then.
Actually, I use it most everyday for some aspect. But just for general knowledge, never as proof of something. Last night, I was upgrading the firmware on my router, and I wasn't sure what TKIP and AES were, so I found out on Wiki.

OK, so the article's over the top, but it's a comedy newspaper. But suppose someone was looking at the Crusades article and said, "No, Jerusalem's on the Mediterranean." They can change the article to reflect that inaccuracy, and it will stay until someone who knows better comes along and changes it back. In the meanwhile, 36 schoolkids just used that article in their paper on Israel and Palestine. 36 schoolkids now have to be instructed that their "fact" isn't.

You know what. Why don't you go do that now, and we'll see how long it lasts, eh?

I can make wikipedia say anything that I want it to say and then give you a link. Politicians have been trashing the profiles of their opponents regularly on that site. It is so massive that those who regulate it cannot do so effectively. One time I saw the definition of the holocaust as a "fun weekend activity" on wikipedia. I have noticed that many leftists on this forum use wikipedia to prove their points by using biased and poorly written articles with links to non-credible sources at the bottom. Wikipedia is not a source for a paper in academia, and it should not be one on this forum.

Is no one else even mildly concerned that people treat wiki as a source that is reliable?

Even if the final article was the definition of truth (and that's a big if), there is still the problem of being one of the hundreds of poor saps who pop online and look stuff up during the "This post is total bollocks but no one has spotted it yet" phase.

As a 'rough guide' to a subject. Fine. As something to base a serious understanding off, try again.

I can make wikipedia say anything that I want it to say and then give you a link.

Go ahead and try it.

Politicians have been trashing the profiles of their opponents regularly on that site. It is so massive that those who regulate it cannot do so effectively.

Examples...?

One time I saw the definition of the holocaust as a "fun weekend activity" on wikipedia.

Oh really? Can you show me?

I have noticed that many leftists on this forum use wikipedia to prove their points by using biased and poorly written articles with links to non-credible sources at the bottom.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

You know what. Why don't you go do that now, and we'll see how long it lasts, eh?
I would never put facts I know not to be true on there. I do have *some* intergrity, you know.

I can make wikipedia say anything that I want it to say and then give you a link. Politicians have been trashing the profiles of their opponents regularly on that site. It is so massive that those who regulate it cannot do so effectively. One time I saw the definition of the holocaust as a "fun weekend activity" on wikipedia. I have noticed that many leftists on this forum use wikipedia to prove their points by using biased and poorly written articles with links to non-credible sources at the bottom. Wikipedia is not a source for a paper in academia, and it should not be one on this forum.

Wiki is teh bomb. STFU

There you go, then. I was referring mostly to people like my father who automatically assume people on the net are morons and that given the freedom to screw randomly with articles go on a monkey-with-a-crayon-and-a-book spree. Same way the most ardent opposers of communism automatically assume everybody would suddenly stop working and live off the state. But let's not get into that.

Bottom line: 11 year-olds tend to keep to AOL chatrooms. and counter strike boards

Is no one else even mildly concerned that people treat wiki as a source that is reliable?

I am. :) That's why I started this thread.

Bottom line: 11 year-olds tend to keep to AOL chatrooms. and counter strike boards

Sources?

I would never put facts I know not to be true on there. I do have *some* intergrity, you know.

So what, you're just making stuff up as you go along? Don't like the sound of Wiki, so of course you wouldn't bother trying to learn anything about it.

Is no one else even mildly concerned that people treat wiki as a source that is reliable?

Even if the final article was the definition of truth (and that's a big if), there is still the problem of being one of the hundreds of poor saps who pop online and look stuff up during the "This post is total bollocks but no one has spotted it yet" phase.

As a 'rough guide' to a subject. Fine. As something to base a serious understanding off, try again.


I am concerned. I will reject anything that anybody pulls from it. Read my last post re: the holocaust.

I can make wikipedia say anything that I want it to say and then give you a link. Politicians have been trashing the profiles of their opponents regularly on that site. It is so massive that those who regulate it cannot do so effectively. One time I saw the definition of the holocaust as a "fun weekend activity" on wikipedia. I have noticed that many leftists on this forum use wikipedia to prove their points by using biased and poorly written articles with links to non-credible sources at the bottom. Wikipedia is not a source for a paper in academia, and it should not be one on this forum.

The essays I've written, nothing found on thew internet was accepted as a source without it being backed up in a published text. If you want to apply full academic standards to what we do here then I'm afraid we could be reduced to runnig around to each others houses with textbooks.

Bottom line: 11 year-olds tend to keep to AOL chatrooms. and counter strike boards
And teen heartthrob sites.

I would never put facts I know not to be true on there. I do have *some* intergrity, you know.

Please remove your hand from my wallet when you say "Trust me";)

Go ahead and try it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahopac%2C_New_York

check out the stuff about race

Examples...?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2032346,00.html

Oh really? Can you show me?

nope, I changed it back.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
IN the land of OZ that you live in.

What are you talking aobut exactly?

Who wrote the article? Not the sources, the article. Knowing who wrote the article tells you much about the bias (even unintentional) of the piece (among many other things).

What is the article on? Pretty simple if you understand what it is saying.

When was the article written? Was it written at a time that not presenting a certain line was deemed a crime? Socially unacceptable? Was it written before a key action took place (and thus would not record it and is incomplete) or after a key action but that action was not recorded (in which case the record is inaccurate)

Why was the article written? Closely linked to the environmental factors surrounding the writing of the article but also linking to a number of motives (conscious of sub-conscious).

Where was the article written? Which country, what factors would impinge on the article because of that?

There is a lot more you could add to each of those but I hope that gives you an idea. :)
Whenever you examine a source you should ask these questions to gauge the reliabilty and to check your understanding. With these questions answered, even a page of lies contains useful information. This level of understanding is one of the reasons I love History so much.

I would never put facts I know not to be true on there. I do have *some* intergrity, you know.

the problem is that few other people do on this site.

So what, you're just making stuff up as you go along? Don't like the sound of Wiki, so of course you wouldn't bother trying to learn anything about it.
Are you even reading what I'm writing? I USE IT! I JUST DON'T USE IT AS A RELIABLE SOURCE.

The essays I've written, nothing found on thew internet was accepted as a source without it being backed up in a published text. If you want to apply full academic standards to what we do here then I'm afraid we could be reduced to runnig around to each others houses with textbooks.

no, I never said that I wanted to use full academic standards. I said that just as I would never use it for any academic paper I would never use it on this site.

Please remove your hand from my wallet when you say "Trust me";)
Hey, in fairness, I had already looked at it. After I saw there was no money in it, I returned it like the *good* Samaritan that I am. :D Honest.

IN the land of OZ that you live in.

What stuff about race? I see some stats.

Inconviniet, there's a lot you can learn by looking around. some of your question may be answered on the History tab of the article, or the bottom of the page. How hard did you really look for the answers to those questions?

Are you even reading what I'm writing? I USE IT! I JUST DON'T USE IT AS A RELIABLE SOURCE.
because it is so easy to find things on.....that may or may not be reliable. That is not a good enough reason to use it.

What stuff about race? I see some stats.

Inconviniet, there's a lot you can learn by looking around. some of your question may be answered on the History tab of the article, or the bottom of the page. How hard did you really look for the answers to those questions?

At first it said

As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were 8,478 people, 2,922 households, and 2,258 families residing in the hamlet. The population density was 617.6/km² (1,600.7/mi²). There were 3,099 housing units at an average density of 225.8/km² (585.1/mi²). The racial makeup of the CDP was 94.31% White, 1.06% African American, 0.15% Native American, 1.21% Asian, 1.92% from other races, and 1.33% from two or more races. This is good because niggers smell bad. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.66% of the population.

4 minutes later it said

As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were 8,478 people, 2,922 households, and 2,258 families residing in the hamlet. The population density was 617.6/km² (1,600.7/mi²). There were 3,099 housing units at an average density of 225.8/km² (585.1/mi²). The racial makeup of the CDP was 94.31% White, 1.06% African American, 0.15% Native American, 1.21% Asian, 1.92% from other races, and 1.33% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.66% of the population.

Are you even reading what I'm writing? I USE IT! I JUST DON'T USE IT AS A RELIABLE SOURCE.

And you think we shouldn't either, but I don't really care, as so far any reason you've given has been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Inconviniet, there's a lot you can learn by looking around. some of your question may be answered on the History tab of the article, or the bottom of the page. How hard did you really look for the answers to those questions?

Did you see the article about what the Congressional aids have been doing? ah, yes, you did , and it proved you wrong so you ingnored it. I am never looking at wikipedia again, you use it because it is easy. You use it because it has a liberal bias. I avoid it because it is often inaccurate and used as an attack on people by their political opponents. It is the ultimate subjective source.

At first it said

As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were 8,478 people, 2,922 households, and 2,258 families residing in the hamlet. The population density was 617.6/km² (1,600.7/mi²). There were 3,099 housing units at an average density of 225.8/km² (585.1/mi²). The racial makeup of the CDP was 94.31% White, 1.06% African American, 0.15% Native American, 1.21% Asian, 1.92% from other races, and 1.33% from two or more races. This is good because niggers smell bad. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.66% of the population.

4 minutes later it said

As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were 8,478 people, 2,922 households, and 2,258 families residing in the hamlet. The population density was 617.6/km² (1,600.7/mi²). There were 3,099 housing units at an average density of 225.8/km² (585.1/mi²). The racial makeup of the CDP was 94.31% White, 1.06% African American, 0.15% Native American, 1.21% Asian, 1.92% from other races, and 1.33% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.66% of the population.

So it got fixed rather quickly then?

And you think we shouldn't either, but I don't really care, as so far any reason you've given has been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


haha...wikipedia sourcing the argue for wikipedia...

Did you see the article about what the Congressional aids have been doing? ah, yes, you did , and it proved you wrong so you ingnored it. I am never looking at wikipedia again, you use it because it is easy. You use it because it has a liberal bias. I avoid it because it is often inaccurate and used as an attack on people by their political opponents. It is the ultimate subjective source.

I haven't finished reading the article yet, geez.

haha...wikipedia sourcing the argue for wikipedia...
.
References

* Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic. Prentice Hall College Div; 10th edition (1998). ISBN 0130102024.

So it got fixed rather quickly then?

How about we use sources that do not have to be "fixed"? Is that not slightly more reliable?

.
References

* Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic. Prentice Hall College Div; 10th edition (1998). ISBN 0130102024.

this is the point! It says that on the bottom because sombody stuck it there. Unless you go drive to a library to pick up the book you will not know if the person is lying or not. It does not serve us well in rapid fire response forums like this.

How about we use sources that do not have to be "fixed"? Is that not slightly more reliable?

You know of a perfect source that never needs to be altered or corrected?

References

* Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic. Prentice Hall College Div; 10th edition (1998). ISBN 0130102024.

this is the point! It says that on the bottom because sombody stuck it there. Unless you go drive to a library to pick up the book you will not know if the person is lying or not. It does not serve us well in rapid fire response forums like this.

Well, they'll help you do that too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0130102024

Besides aren't these the kind of sources you want us to be using?

You know of a perfect source that never needs to be altered or corrected?

Never? no. All the time? yes, wikipedia.

Well, they'll help you do that too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0130102024


so wikipedia posts will help me find a library to drive to in order to check your sources. By that time 15 pages have been added to the thread. Nice try. I will not waste time in such a matter. It is much quicker to force you to use a legitimate source that does not have to be altered and corrected all of the time because of inaccurate information that biased people place on it.

So it got fixed rather quickly then?

I dont know. I didnt write the original article, or alter it (if indeed it was altered) nor did I "fix" it. I dont even know that the current figures are correct. Nor if that hamlet in new York actually exists in real life. All I know is that there was a racial slur in the article and 3-4 minutes later it was gone.

so wikipedia posts will help me find a library to drive to in order to check your sources. By that time 15 pages have been added to the thread. Nice try. I will not waste time in such a matter. It is much quicker to force you to use a legitimate source that does not have to be altered and corrected all of the time because of inaccurate information that biased people place on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0130102024#Online_databases

Reading is helpful.

I dont know. I didnt write the original article, or alter it (if indeed it was altered) nor did I "fix" it. I dont even know that the current figures are correct. Nor if that hamlet in new York actually exists in real life. All I know is that there was a racial slur in the article and 3-4 minutes later it was gone.

How about we use sources in which a racial slur cannot be added and we know that the town exists..?

And you think we shouldn't either, but I don't really care, as so far any reason you've given has been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
I'll admit that may be true to an extent, but my "false until proven true" appears to be exactly equal to your "true until proven false." Nope, no moral high ground for you on this one.

EDIT: Here you go: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/moralhg.htm (non-Wiki for your reading reliability)

How about we use sources that do not have to be "fixed"? Is that not slightly more reliable?
People are never going to write an encyclopedia that will never need to be fixed. If that were the case, World Book wouldn't put out a new set each year, but just a single book documenting the events of that year.

I dont know. I didnt write the original article, or alter it (if indeed it was altered) nor did I "fix" it. I dont even know that the current figures are correct. Nor if that hamlet in new York actually exists in real life. All I know is that there was a racial slur in the article and 3-4 minutes later it was gone.

Check with the U.S. Census to see if the article is correct then.

I don't have a problem with Wikipedia -- I trust in the power of the community to self-govern. There are hundreds, if not thousands of hard-core Wikipedians who monitor the list of recent changes religiously, so most of the edits made to any particular article are checked out at least once. High-profile or controversial pages are scrutinized even more carefully; for instance, the articles on homosexuality and George W. Bush are protected from anonymous editing. Each page also hosts its own discussion board, so conflicts over alleged bias or misinformation can be debated and rectified.

In light of all this, I'm confident that Wikipedia is a fine source of information.

I'll admit that may be true to an extent, but my "false until proven true" appears to be exactly equal to your "true until proven false." Nope, no moral high ground for you on this one.

You've basically given "I don't understand how it can be reliable, so I say it isn't, no one should use it as such".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0130102024#Online_databases

Reading is helpful.

Using real sources is helpful. Look even the libs hate wikipedia.
http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1133982925.shtml

and for those of you who missed this.......it is scary

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/


check that out!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People are never going to write an encyclopedia that will never need to be fixed. If that were the case, World Book wouldn't put out a new set each year, but just a single book documenting the events of that year.

Right, but an encyclopedia is created by people with advanced degrees who edit it for accuracy and not political bias. Check out the second link in my last post!!!!!

I know it's from a fake newspaper, but (1) it's hilarious and (2) it showcases what is horribly wrong with the concept of Wikipedia. Now I just need to start working on the people who think that blogs are journalism.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

Just so this doesn't get thrown into spam, I'll add a question. Have you ever linked to Wikipedia and then found out later that it was 100% bogus info?

Here is why you should stop thinking of blogs as journalism.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~kumii/batman.swf

I don't have a problem with Wikipedia -- I trust in the power of the community to self-govern. There are hundreds, if not thousands of hard-core Wikipedians who monitor the list of recent changes religiously, so most of the edits made to any particular article are checked out at least once. High-profile or controversial pages are scrutinized even more carefully; for instance, the articles on homosexuality and George W. Bush are protected from anonymous editing. Each page also hosts its own discussion board, so conflicts over alleged bias or misinformation can be debated and rectified.

In light of all this, I'm confident that Wikipedia is a fine source of information.
Maybe. Your argument is a little more cogent, even if I still disagree. But would you agree that "perceived reliability" can be as important, if not more important, than "actual reliability?" If Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken told me something that is the 100% truth (for the sake of argument, people), and if I didn't know for a fact it was the 100% truth, I'm not going to take their word for it because they each have perceived bias.

Check with the U.S. Census to see if the article is correct then.
That's the goddamned point. I shouldn't have to go double-check every single article I read just to be sure that it is in fact accurate. You want us to assume it is because we don't know that it's not.

Here is why you should stop thinking of blogs as journalism.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~kumii/batman.swf

A compelling argument.

You've basically given "I don't understand how it can be reliable, so I say it isn't, no one should use it as such".
And how is that different from your stance of "You can't prove it's not reliable, so just use it like it is?"

That's the goddamned point. I shouldn't have to go double-check every single article I read just to be sure that it is in fact accurate. You want us to assume it is because we don't know that it's not.

Do you want to find out if it's accurate or not? If I gave you a Wikipedia source, you can't just say "it's inaccurate" and have it dismissed. Find something else that refutes it.

And how is that different from your stance of "You can't prove it's not reliable, so just use it like it is?"

If you don't think an article is reliable, check the sources. It's not that hard, don't be lazy.

*sigh*

It's always up to me...

*clears throat*

In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia links to you!

Do you want to find out if it's accurate or not? If I gave you a Wikipedia source, you can't just say "it's inaccurate" and have it dismissed. Find something else that refutes it.

It'd be even easier to find two Wiki articles that refute eachother on some points.

Here is why you should stop thinking of blogs as journalism.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~kumii/batman.swf

I am going to build a shrine to that.

Using real sources is helpful. Look even the libs hate wikipedia.
http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1133982925.shtml

and for those of you who missed this.......it is scary

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/


check that out!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm beggin' you, man. Stop bringing your personal hatred for all things liberal into every argument, okay?

EVERYONE uses Wiki. And didn't you read one of the earlier posts? Emotionally charged articles are not editable by anonymous sources and are guarded -- even the article on your hero, W. So please, unless the TOPIC has to do with bias, leave it out of threads that con't possibly concern it. Otherwise, we'll be forced to conclude that you don't argue so much as you whine about bias. It's getting old. Almost as old as you not bearing even a passing political resemblance to the actual Barry Goldwater.

It'd be even easier to find two Wiki articles that refute eachother on some points.

Do it then.

Do you want to find out if it's accurate or not? If I gave you a Wikipedia source, you can't just say "it's inaccurate" and have it dismissed. Find something else that refutes it.
Here's a good reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_argument) for not using the Wikipedia to prove the Wikipedia (using your precious source).

Right, but an encyclopedia is created by people with advanced degrees who edit it for accuracy and not political bias. Check out the second link in my last post!!!!!
You mean Martin Meehan's staff director does not have an advanced degree?

I'm beggin' you, man. Stop bringing your personal hatred for all things liberal into every argument, okay?

EVERYONE uses Wiki. And didn't you read one of the earlier posts? Emotionally charged articles are not editable by anonymous sources and are guarded -- even the article on your hero, W. So please, unless the TOPIC has to do with bias, leave it out of threads that con't possibly concern it. Otherwise, we'll be forced to conclude that you don't argue so much as you whine about bias. It's getting old. Almost as old as you not bearing even a passing political resemblance to the actual Barry Goldwater.

He's one of those semi-trolls. He doesn't out and out troll, he just says a lot of stupid things and is really annoying. You know, like CnT and stuff. I still recommend the "don't feed" method, but I've somehow ended up debating him again...

Here's a good reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_argument) for not using the Wikipedia to prove the Wikipedia (using your precious source).

Was the article I linked to inaccurate?

I am going to build a shrine to that.

As if there weren't already hundreds on the internet.

Do it then.

If I do this thing for you will you stop with the Wiki-is-teh-Accurate-source nonsense?

Was the article I linked to inaccurate?
I went to find an article on "circular reasoning" for citing a wiki article to prove the accuracy of a wiki article, but it kept dragging me back to 'begging the question," which is related but different. I don't want to read through two screens of "not what I need" to get to "what I need" as "Related Fallacies."

I went to find an article on "circular reasoning" for citing a wiki article to prove the accuracy of a wiki article, but it kept dragging me back to 'begging the question," which is related but different. I don't want to read through two screens of "not what I need" to get to "what I need" as "Related Fallacies."

I linked to an article about a logical fallacy to describe your argument. Did that article incorrectly describe Argument from Ignorance?

And, what, you being bad at searching is Wiki's fault too?

If I do this thing for you will you stop with the Wiki-is-teh-Accurate-source nonsense?

Eh. Let's find out.

If we can use wiki then what should we use?

Huh? :confused:

At the top of the article Wikipedia:Accuracy Dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute), there is a graphic:
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.

Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.
How is this necessary on Teh Reliable Source?

I linked to an article about a logical fallacy to describe your argument. Did that article incorrectly describe Argument from Ignorance?

And, what, you being bad at searching is Wiki's fault too?
Well, the links within articles are quite poor at some times.

Wiki is a lot like Google.

Under no circumstances should one's search for information end with Google. Same thing with Wikipedia. Both are search engines designed to give you some leads to follow.

Just like a police detective doesn't take a lead and go make an immediate arrest, nobody should stop at Wiki and say "I know everything on this topic now". The sources and links at the bottom of most Wiki articles are further leads. If you don't trust Wiki, then fine, don't. I don't until I have one more non-Wiki source. Hoever, Wiki or Google often lead me to those sources, and guess what, kids? Wiki is plenty accurate.

Just because it has non-standard practices doesn't mean it should never be used. I don't think it stands up well in an argument, but it may lead you to, say a term you didn't know which you can look up on Encarta or some other "more legitimate" online research source.

It's a match, not a bonfire.

Remember when you were a kid, and you'd ask a parent a question and if they knew it, they'd give you the answer, and that was all you needed? How did you know Mom or Dad or Whoever knew what they were talking about? You didn't! Not really, unless the parent in question was educated in the subject of your question, and how many complex questions is a 5-year-old gonna lay on the typical parent (loaded question, but I mean questions like "what are atoms made of?")? When you get older, your parent(s), if they were like mine, bought you a reference source of some kind. An almanac, an encyclopedia, some sort of authoritative resource.

The point is, those who love Wiki are too prone to use it as an only source, especially in online debates. Those who hate it are too prone to dismiss it utterly. As usual, the answer is in the middle.

If we can use wiki then what should we use?

Depends on who you ask. Barry might say the bible.

Huh?

At the top of the article Wikipedia:Accuracy Dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute), there is a graphic:

Did you check the talk page?

Eh. Let's find out.

I'll take that as a "No" then and not bother. I can only change someone's logical opinion with facts. I cannot change his faith with them. Have a nice Wiki.

Wiki is a lot like Google.
Yesterday, while talking to my boss, I called Google the Wal*Mart of search engines: they have everything, and the price is right, but a lot of it is shitty quality. I guess the same might be said for the wiki.

The point is, those who love Wiki are too prone to use it as an only source, especially in online debates. Those who hate it are too prone to dismiss it utterly. As usual, the answer is in the middle.

Technically, considering the references and further reading usually at the bottom of the page easily available to anyone you send to the page, I'd hardly call it an only source.

Did you check the talk page?
Yes, and it's a fine page, if you already know or suspect it's inaccurate.

How is this necessary on Teh Reliable Source?

I'd imagine it's one of the strengths. Not only does it warn the reader about possible disputes, it directs the reader to where they are being discussed.

Huh? :confused:

At the top of the article Wikipedia:Accuracy Dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute), there is a graphic:

How is this necessary on Teh Reliable Source?
It is an article where people argue that articles have false information in them. People may use false facts to support their arguements. One poster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Mohammed_Sylla) says that information in one article is false, because he believes it to be false.

I'll take that as a "No" then and not bother. I can only change someone's logical opinion with facts. I cannot change his faith with them. Have a nice Wiki.
You are the one who said it could easily be done. He challenged that and you have basicly dodged that challenge. For all we know now, you are just blowing shit out your ass.

Technically, considering the references and further reading usually at the bottom of the page easily available to anyone you send to the page, I'd hardly call it an only source.
At last, we agree on something. :D Like last night. I was looking for TKIP + AES. Wikipedia was a good start, but I wanted technical details, so I went elsewhere using the link at the bottom of the TKIP page. But I'd still be more likely to cite *that* source than the wiki itself.

I'd imagine it's one of the strengths. Not only does it warn the reader about possible disputes, it directs the reader to where they are being discussed.
True, but again, this is on known or suspected inaccuracies. Even assuming 99.999% of them are caught, but not instantly. There's still a finite time period there where someone's going to be reading it, not knowing it's false, then quoting it.

True, but again, this is on known or suspected inaccuracies. Even assuming 99.999% of them are caught, but not instantly. There's still a finite time period there where someone's going to be reading it, not knowing it's false, then quoting it.

*shrug* Nothing is perfect. Where else are you going to find a biography of Richard Vincent, Baron Vincent of Coleshill? (Don't answer that, I just hit the random article button for an example.)

True, but again, this is on known or suspected inaccuracies. Even assuming 99.999% of them are caught, but not instantly. There's still a finite time period there where someone's going to be reading it, not knowing it's false, then quoting it.
Then someone will be like "FTW? What you said isn't in the article! Stop blowing smoke out your ass."

*shrug* Nothing is perfect. Where else are you going to find a biography of Richard Vincent, Baron Vincent of Coleshill? (Don't answer that, I just hit the random article button for an example.)
:-) True, and that is why I use it to get a general feel. I'll grant it's right more often than not. But there's still the problem of perceived reliability. If I'm writing a paper on a theory of public spending for economics, my prof is going to look infinitely more favorably on an article from the current issue of NAJ Economics (where I got the topic from ;) ) than colling together Wikipedia articles.

True, but again, this is on known or suspected inaccuracies. Even assuming 99.999% of them are caught, but not instantly. There's still a finite time period there where someone's going to be reading it, not knowing it's false, then quoting it.

I still don't understand what you want us to use instead? This is the internet, absolutly anything on here could be inaccurate. There is no standard or peer review that must be met before someone puts something on their website. Some sites may be more trust worthy than other in your eyes but even the most trusted sometimes make mistakes, I've seen hte BBC News site post a mistaken article only to quickly replace in with an updated one. What standard do you want us to use for the sources we provide?

Then someone will be like "FTW? What you said isn't in the article! Stop blowing smoke out your ass."
I know, and that's sad, because the person worked hard on his paper only to get an F for using bad info then citing it.

I still don't understand what you want us to use instead? This is the internet, absolutly anything on here could be inaccurate. There is no standard or peer review that must be met before someone puts something on their website. Some sites may be more trust worthy than other in your eyes but even the most trusted sometimes make mistakes, I've seen hte BBC News site post a mistaken article only to quickly replace in with an updated one. What standard do you want us to use for the sources we provide?
I'm personally partial to the Reasonable Person Standard. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) :D

[Yes, I know it's a legal fiction, but come on, this was supposed to be a light-hearted thread and it turned into a battle of iron-wills.]

In the spirit of amicability: @>--- for everyone.

I know, and that's sad, because the person worked hard on his paper only to get an F for using bad info then citing it.

I'd check more than one source if I'm being graded.

I know, and that's sad, because the person worked hard on his paper only to get an F for using bad info then citing it.
Did this happen to you?

Wait, more importantly, you are allow to cite only one source? What slack teachers you have.

I'm personally partial to the Reasonable Person Standard. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) :D

[Yes, I know it's a legal fiction, but come on, this was supposed to be a light-hearted thread and it turned into a battle of iron-wills.]

In the spirit of amicability: @>--- for everyone.

The man on the Clapham Bus?

I'd check more than one source if I'm being graded.
:nods:

I'd check more than one source if I'm being graded.
Most teachers wouldn't accept only one source. I've needed at least three since Grade 11

Did this happen to you?

Wait, more importantly, you are allow to cite only one source? What slack teachers you have.
HAHAHAHA!!! (sorry) The World Wide Web was just a baby when I graduated. I was one of two people allowed the use the school library internet connection, and that was because my physics teacher had me gophering assignments from MIT. Hell, I didn't even have a computer of my own until I was a senior in high school. I did everything on a personal word processor (a typewriter with a monitor).

HAHAHAHA!!! (sorry) The World Wide Web was just a baby when I graduated. I was one of two people allowed the use the school library internet connection, and that was because my physics teacher had me gophering assignments from MIT. Hell, I didn't even have a computer of my own until I was a senior in high school. I did everything on a personal word processor (a typewriter with a monitor).
You seemed to have much sympathy for the person failing due to a source changing on them.

The man on the Clapham Bus?
Huh, I could have sworn that said Hammersmith Bus.

I just got a message to my IP address saying not to remove information from the Wiki page on the Reasonable Person Standard. But I didn't remove any info. That's odd.

You seemed to have much sympathy for the person failing due to a source changing on them.
I'm always sad when people get pwned. I'm a sensitive guy. My wife says it's one of the reasons why she loves me. :) Ignorance is forgivable but sad.

Wikipedia is good. It has an effective and efficient bullshit detection infrastructure.

Huh, I could have sworn that said Hammersmith Bus.

I just got a message to my IP address saying not to remove information from the Wiki page on the Reasonable Person Standard. But I didn't remove any info. That's odd.
With some ISPs, you share your IP address with the people near to you. There is also the fact that some people can fake their IP, or hijack your compy into editing the article.

I like other wikis -- www.hrwiki.org (http://www.hrwiki.org) is a good example. :D

With some ISPs, you share your IP address with the people near to you. There is also the fact that some people can fake their IP, or hijack your compy into editing the article.
Meh, I'm on a work computer. Don't care anymore.

I know it's from a fake newspaper, but (1) it's hilarious and (2) it showcases what is horribly wrong with the concept of Wikipedia. Now I just need to start working on the people who think that blogs are journalism.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

Just so this doesn't get thrown into spam, I'll add a question. Have you ever linked to Wikipedia and then found out later that it was 100% bogus info?

You're judging Wikipedia to be unreliable based on what The Onion told you. There's something dreadfully, dreadfully wrong with this scenario....

You're judging Wikipedia to be unreliable based on what The Onion told you. There's something dreadfully, dreadfully wrong with this scenario....
No, I recognize that it's satire from a fake newspaper. But it illustrates my point.

Huh, I could have sworn that said Hammersmith Bus.

I just got a message to my IP address saying not to remove information from the Wiki page on the Reasonable Person Standard. But I didn't remove any info. That's odd.

It did, I was watching Bottom when I wrote it and typed what I'd just heard and not what I was thinking, got it on the edit though :D

Wiki is good for looking up basic facts and ideas. I looked up several events on the French Revolution for the start of one of my Uni Modules. But I always double and triple-check via our Library, and never cite it in an academic essay - that's just foolish.

However, for debating here it is excellent. For BarryGoldwater, do you have academic texts on the wide variety of subjects debated here? I very much doubt it. Thus, Wiki (Imperfect as it is) is the best source we have.

I went to find an article on "circular reasoning" for citing a wiki article to prove the accuracy of a wiki article, but it kept dragging me back to 'begging the question," which is related but different. I don't want to read through two screens of "not what I need" to get to "what I need" as "Related Fallacies."Actually, Nikzor (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html) says they're the same thing. Of course, Infidels (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#circulus) calls it "Circulus in demonstrando", while they call Begging the Question "Petitio principii" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#begging).

Sometimes it's good to simply have your own sources so you can skip the Wiki alltogether...

Just so this doesn't get thrown into spam, I'll add a question. Have you ever linked to Wikipedia and then found out later that it was 100% bogus info?No, but I checked it on doping and noticed the article isn't totally accurate.

It's nonsense. A study found that Wikipedia was as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

I'd like to point out that that very study was thoroughly re-analysed and kipped into the rubbish bin in a counterstudy in the Times. If memory serves me right, that was in March of this year.