NationStates Jolt Archive

I do have to say that this is 100% ****ing hilarious. I think of cases like this every time I see someone use wiki as a source. I will admit though that wiki is not a bad place to start when working on a project. You can use the links in the bibliography of the article to do some true research.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/08/01/stephen-colbert-causes-chaos-on-wikipedia-gets-blocked-from-site/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fspring.newsvine.com%2F_news%2F2006%2F08%2F01%2F307864-stephen-colbert-causes-chaos-on-wikipedia-gets-blocked-from-site&frame=true

I saw that. It was funny. I love Stephen Colbert...

So Colbert helped demonstrate that Wikipedia can be vandalized; of course, this was already a well established and totally acknowledged fact. He also helped demonstrate that the Wikipedia community is ready and able to correct and prevent such vandalism. If anything, this stunt simply demonstrates the virtue of the wiki approach. Yes, idiots like Mr. Colbert who do not want to contribue in a legitimate or useful way are fully capable of causing trouble. But the open, massively parallel, peer review nature of Wikipedia makes it very easy to deal with such idiocy, nearly instantly. Closed sources that can be taken advantage of by biased or otherwise malicious interests do not present this same feature.

Frankly, if anything, Wikipedia's legitimacy has increased as a result of Mr. Colbert's "comedy."

Spoof= ignored.

if any are intrested the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHm0rGns4I&search=colbert%20wikipedia

So Colbert helped demonstrate that Wikipedia can be vandalized; of course, this was already a well established and totally acknowledged fact. He also helped demonstrate that the Wikipedia community is ready and able to correct and prevent such vandalism. If anything, this stunt simply demonstrates the virtue of the wiki approach. Yes, idiots like Mr. Colbert who do not want to contribue in a legitimate or useful way are fully capable of causing trouble. But the open, massively parallel, peer review nature of Wikipedia makes it very easy to deal with such idiocy, nearly instantly. Closed sources that can be taken advantage of by biased or otherwise malicious interests do not present this same feature.

Frankly, if anything, Wikipedia's legitimacy has increased as a result of Mr. Colbert's "comedy."

I don't suppose you've ever seen his show before.

So Colbert helped demonstrate that Wikipedia can be vandalized; of course, this was already a well established and totally acknowledged fact. He also helped demonstrate that the Wikipedia community is ready and able to correct and prevent such vandalism. If anything, this stunt simply demonstrates the virtue of the wiki approach. Yes, idiots like Mr. Colbert who do not want to contribue in a legitimate or useful way are fully capable of causing trouble. But the open, massively parallel, peer review nature of Wikipedia makes it very easy to deal with such idiocy, nearly instantly. Closed sources that can be taken advantage of by biased or otherwise malicious interests do not present this same feature.

Frankly, if anything, Wikipedia's legitimacy has increased as a result of Mr. Colbert's "comedy."
The biggest problem is that people can add biases without intent of being vandals. Or they might get something totaly wrong despite good intentions. Let's just face the fact that if anyone can enter something into it, then the information is likely to be flawed in one way or another. Just use wiki on a paper and see what grade you get. Most professors will give you an F for it..

The biggest problem is that people can add biases without intent of being vandals. Or they might get something totaly wrong despite good intentions. Let's just face the fact that if anyone can enter something into it, then the information is likely to be flawed in one way or another. Just use wiki on a paper and see what grade you get. Most professors will give you an F for it..
Assuming you go to college, or will in the future. (let's hear it for us losers!)

In other news... :eek: SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET CAN BE WRONG?!?!?! OH NOES!!!!!!!

Assuming you go to college, or will in the future. (let's hear it for us losers!)

In other news... :eek: SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET CAN BE WRONG?!?!?! OH NOES!!!!!!!
Someone in my Freshman composition course at Purdue got failed on a paper for it. We were told specifically to not touch wikipedia.

Someone in my Freshman composition course at Purdue got failed on a paper for it. We were told specifically to not touch wikipedia.
Emphasis on Purdue. A college. One of those institutions that I will never attend.

Anyways, other sources are just as fallable as Wikipedia, if not more so, since Wiki gets updated constantly. Just because something isn't free doesn't mean its better *cough windows and linux, case-in-point cough*

Wiki is like a public toilet. (No wait, this is going somewhere).

In prinicple it is a fine idea and can be of benefit to all. Unfortunately there are a small minority who think it is funny to go in their and smear their shit all over the walls and ruin it for the rest of us.

NEVER use Wiki for any type of college paper.

Wikipedia is worthless when it comes to formal academic papers, but in situations such as a forum, or a discussion amongst friends, it's perfectly acceptable as a source of information. The reader review system allows for challenges to accuracy and bias. Editors and administrators keep their eyes on particularly contentious articles, and weed out the bull regularly. The classic example being when my friend attempted to edit himself into an article about an obscure basketball player. The wikipedia admin folks had removed his edit in under fifteen minutes.

NEVER use Wiki for any type of college paper.
You kidding … maybe not English or history but a lot of their tech articles specially with diagrams can be most useful in collage … even on the post grad level … I would not use them for my grad papers but that is more because of the stigmata then any specific tech problem

But that is a narrow field of information that is almost untouched by conventional encyclopedias … you wont find many print sources that show the new TCP standard or some of the new things done in cisco’s stackwize token ring but they can be at your fingertips there

The Reader's Digest (oh the lows I've sunk to in terms of bathroom reading) did a piece on Wikipedia, and compared it to the Encylcopaedia Brittanica. I don't remember the specifics, nor do I have an online link...so yeah. But anyway, they pointed out that there were quite a few errors in the published encylcopaedia that took years to fix...well and as if you're going to buy a new set every time there is a change anyway. Whereas errors in Wikipedia were corrected very swiftly.

ANY encyclopaedia should be used as a starting point only, not as the destination. And that is precisely what Wikipedia is...an encyclopaedia.

NEVER use Wiki for any type of college paper.
Silly, don't cite the wiki, cite the source that the wiki cites. How hard can it be?

Silly, don't cite the wiki, cite the source that the wiki cites. How hard can it be?
Agreed … and what collage level student cites ANY encyclopedia really? Frig I know I would have gotten docked for being lazy for just using the information given to me in an encyclopedia no matter what one it was.

Emphasis on Purdue. A college. One of those institutions that I will never attend.

Anyways, other sources are just as fallable as Wikipedia, if not more so, since Wiki gets updated constantly. Just because something isn't free doesn't mean its better *cough windows and linux, case-in-point cough*
The problem isn't that it isn't free. I can tell you my free McAfee anti-virus is better than Norton. Wiki is a bad encyclopedia because anyone can change it however they damn well please.

I don't suppose you've ever seen his show before.

I have. I wasn't very impressed, however; I couldn't stop thinking "Daily Show ripoff."

The biggest problem is that people can add biases without intent of being vandals. Or they might get something totaly wrong despite good intentions.


Of course. And then you, or anyone else, armed with appropriate references and sources, can easily correct those biases. The point that Wikipedia is susceptable to error has already been acknowledged. The means that Wikipedia presents for correcting and preventing error, however, continues to be ignored.


Let's just face the fact that if anyone can enter something into it, then the information is likely to be flawed in one way or another.


Who presents the information is irrevelant. The information is either correct or incorrect based on its own merit. Basing the reliability of the information on who presents it is to engage in the fallacy of appeal to authority.


Just use wiki on a paper and see what grade you get.
Most professors will give you an F for it..

Not if the information presented by Wikipedia is corroborated by other sources, including the very sources that Wikipedia cites itself. A professor who uses my transcripts to push a personal agenda, however, can meet with me at the campus ombudsman's office. (edit: let us not ignore the direct interest that the academian has in discrediting and smearing sources of information other than its own self. *holds up latest political science journal and points to price tag in lower left corner of front cover*)

NEVER use Wiki for any type of college paper.
It's all context. I've seen flames in Physical Review Letters. While a wiki is far from an ultimate authority, so is any book, or even experiment you personally ran, understanding the argument and gathering support for a, hopefully, new conclusion is what it's all about. Given that an encylopedia of any stripe has at best a brief survey on any topic, alone they are all ineffective.

Something like a philsophy paper on Godel's ontological argument might be greatly enriched by wikipedia given the balanced presentation. This in turn might well foster a broader, more well considered argument on the topic rather than the one sided expression of a single passionate viewpoint.

Also, "humanities" papers are ridiculously simple. I learned this trick from a roommate. Pick the most obnoxious argument you can think of, focus on all the evidence that supports that viewpoint. The shear superficial novelty seems to win out over reasoning of greater depth.

The biggest problem is that people can add biases without intent of being vandals. Or they might get something totaly wrong despite good intentions. Let's just face the fact that if anyone can enter something into it, then the information is likely to be flawed in one way or another.

a) And Wiki is extremely good about finding, alerting users to, and quickly fixing these problems.
b) You seem to lack confidence in anything not created by elite teams of well-paid, selective "professionals" and "experts", perhaps assuming that anything that is expensive is superior to that which is free? Linux and FF users would have a dispute with you there. Decentralized, flexible, but accurately self-repairing/correcting systems that incorporate information from a wide variety of sources but retain subsystems for the correction of errors are potentially far more powerful and useful than any rigid, centralized, fundamentally limited for-pay information source.

Just use wiki on a paper and see what grade you get. Most professors will give you an F for it..

So cite the sources Wiki gives you in-line and in footnotes instead....

Teh uber wiki study (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html)
Thus, Wikipedia IS a good encyclopedia.

The problem isn't that it isn't free. I can tell you my free McAfee anti-virus is better than Norton. Wiki is a bad encyclopedia because anyone can change it however they damn well please.

At which point they are banned for life and the problem is fixed ASAP.

As far as I'm concerned, wiki is a little bit like the free market. If you are a bit of a capitalist at heart (despite what you're telling yourself in your head) you might be quite ready to think that such a free "competition" of knowledge can give you on average pretty good results, with deviations being quickly resolved.

And if you have your doubts regarding the results of the free market (no, not talking about income distribution, just the general outcome, ie economic development), you're likely to have your doubts about wiki as well.

In many ways it's the same sort of principle.

For me, wiki is quick, wiki is free, wiki is userfriendly and wiki is a great point to start your search, especially because so many articles list sources.

The biggest problem is that people can add biases without intent of being vandals. Or they might get something totaly wrong despite good intentions.

Of course. And then you, or anyone else, armed with appropriate references and sources, can easily correct those biases. The point that Wikipedia is susceptable to error has already been acknowledged. The means that Wikipedia presents for correcting and preventing error, however, continues to be ignored.

Because it only works when the error is known or suspected. Are people employed scouring every piece of information that is updated for even the smallest error? The reporting process works great if you or I or someone else (1) sees the page and (2) can point at something and say "that is wrong."

How many people can spot an error on this infrequently accessed page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborators_%28V_TV_series%29

Teh uber wiki study (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html)
Thus, Wikipedia IS a good encyclopedia.
All it says is that Wikipedia's statistically no better or worse than an encyclopedia, specifically Britannica. The interpretation that this makes it a good encyclopedia is yours. And for the record, the Nature study dealt only with science articles.

All it says is that Wikipedia's statistically no better or worse than an encyclopedia, specifically Britannica. The interpretation that this makes it a good encyclopedia is yours. And for the record, the Nature study dealt only with science articles.
If it's not worse then Britannica, and Britannica is generally held to be a good encyclopedia, then wiki is also a good encyclopedia.
And who cares if nature only dealt with science articles. It should be a representitive sample anyway.

The biggest problem is that people can add biases without intent of being vandals. Or they might get something totaly wrong despite good intentions. Are you suggesting that the people who produce encyclopedias and similar materials are free of biases and unable to get things wrong despite good intentions?

Anyone who uses any type of encyclopaedia, not just wikipedia, as an academic source outside of middle high school is an idiot. Why does any of this even matter? Case closed.

Anyone who uses any type of encyclopaedia, not just wikipedia, as an academic source outside of middle high school is an idiot. Why does any of this even matter? Case closed.


Because it happens to serve as the only standard online.

A bad standard, mind you, but which other ones could we use?

Let's say I wished to make a statement about the differences between hellenistic and imperial roman art. I've got some reference-books on the topic in my bookshelf. Do you?

Let's say you wanted to make a statement about Midnight Oil. I'm sure you have references, maybe even a CD or two. Do I?

Because it happens to serve as the only standard online.

A bad standard, mind you, but which other ones could we use?

Let's say I wished to make a statement about the differences between hellenistic and imperial roman art. I've got some reference-books on the topic in my bookshelf. Do you?

Let's say you wanted to make a statement about Midnight Oil. I'm sure you have references, maybe even a CD or two. Do I?

I said academic source. :)

Casual references on an internet forum obviously don't matter.

I said academic source. :)

*nods* So, which other possible sources night we use?

and.... :p most of the posters still ARE on the high school level anyway.

If it's not worse then Britannica, and Britannica is generally held to be a good encyclopedia, then wiki is also a good encyclopedia.
And who cares if nature only dealt with science articles. It should be a representitive sample anyway.
From the Wiki ;) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

*nods* So, which other possible sources night we use?

For academic papers? A library, maybe?

I have. I wasn't very impressed, however; I couldn't stop thinking "Daily Show ripoff."

Spinoff. Daily Show spinoff.

For academic papers? A library, maybe?

Ah - good point.

Er - how many libraries do they have in the backwoods in the US, though? :confused:

Ah - good point.

Er - how many libraries do they have in the backwoods in the US, though? :confused:

Well, if you need to write an academic paper, chances are that you're attending an institution that is either in a fairly major city or one that provides its own resources - or allows you access to online databases with downloadable research papers and such.

Well, if you need to write an academic paper, chances are that you're attending an institution that is either in a fairly major city or one that provides its own resources - or allows you access to online databases with downloadable research papers and such.


OK. And using just one source, even if it were the best Ency on the planet, would be kind of a diusqualifier for obtaining a Piled Higher and Deeper.

OK. And using just one source, even if it were the best Ency on the planet, would be kind of a diusqualifier for obtaining a Piled Higher and Deeper.

Da.

Is it a bad idea to use a Wikipedia article for a high school assignment? I would only use it for something that requires general information, such as an outline, or for a general definition, not for a research paper, and I always use numerous other resources, including primary sources if applicable, and make sure that nothing in the Wikipedia article is contradicted by my other sources.

I talked with my history teacher last year about it, and he said that it's all right to use it to get a general idea of what something you're researching is about, as long as you don't rely on it and as long as you use other sources.

So, is it all right, or is it still a bad idea?

Colbert is the Jesus of satire. He is wonderful.

Spinoff. Daily Show spinoff.
Thank you. I didn't have the moral courage to be the anal retentive turd. :p

Is it a bad idea to use a Wikipedia article for a high school assignment? I would only use it for something that requires general information, such as an outline, or for a general definition, not for a research paper, and I always use numerous other resources, including primary sources if applicable, and make sure that nothing in the Wikipedia article is contradicted by my other sources.

I talked with my history teacher last year about it, and he said that it's all right to use it to get a general idea of what something you're researching is about, as long as you don't rely on it and as long as you use other sources.

So, is it all right, or is it still a bad idea?

If you track down and cite from the same sources that wikipedia lists in the relevant article rather than wiki itself, you'll probably get a better mark.

Because it only works when the error is known or suspected. Are people employed scouring every piece of information that is updated for even the smallest error?


Access any Wikipedia article, and click the "discussion" and "history" links at the very top of the page. Note the frequently large discussions, and long lists of editors, all constituting people who scour information on Wikipedia, keeping things updated and correcting errors.

Whether these people are "employed" is, again, entirely irrevelant.


The reporting process works great if you or I or someone else (1) sees the page and (2) can point at something and say "that is wrong."


This is why all sources should always be verified against other resources that discuss the topic in question. A source isn't magically free or error simply because it is closed source, paid for, or written in a printed format on a library shelf. All works contain potential for error, and thus all works are suspect until shown otherwise. This problem is by no means unique to Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia, book, paper, etc.