NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html

One more reason why Wikipedia is not a trusted source in the realm of Academia.

NEW YORK — Wikipedia, the controversial online encyclopedia, is planning to ask its army of faceless Internet editors — known as Wikipedians — to verify their credentials after one of the most prolific of their number was exposed as a fraud.

Seems like one of their editors tried to pass himself off as a tenured professor and he wound up being a 24yo college drop out.

What are you thoughts on this.

I no longer consult or follow links to Wikipedia. They've become too snooty. They booted the N00b (http://www.thenoobcomic.com/)!

...

Since when has Wikipedia ever been claimed to be 'a trusted source in the realm of Academia'? It's very nature, that of open-sourced code able to be edited by anyone at any time, negates any true academic value.

I found their source interesting.

Wikipedia Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

By James Doran
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_times_36.gif

NEW YORK — Wikipedia, the controversial online encyclopedia... -snip-

It has its ups and its downs. People seem to focus on the downs more though.

Mr. Wales first thought Mr. Jordan was merely using a false identity to protect himself from online cranks and maintains that his 20,000 or more entries in the Wikipedia have never been called into question.

If he got his shit straight, what's the big deal if he's a professor or a nerd with too much time on his hands?

If he got his shit straight, what's the big deal if he's a professor or a nerd with too much time on his hands?Indeed.
Credentials are overrated. Entries in a wiki should be verified, not accepted based solely on who posted it.

And obviously, if he has time to make 20000 entries, he's not a professor.

One more reason why Wikipedia is not a trusted source in the realm of Academia.

No shit, sherlock. Try referencing a normal encyclopaedia in an academic essay and see how well that'll go down. Why would wiki be any different?

Isn't the point of Wikipedia to be an open encyclopedia such that anyone can fix errors or add information? Who gives a fuck who anyone is? A doctor of Anthropology probably knows less about mathematics than an undergraduate math major.

This smells like partisan hackery for the sake of partisan hackery. And didn't this happen a while back anyway?

Isn't the point of Wikipedia to be an open encyclopedia such that anyone can fix errors or add information? Who gives a fuck who anyone is? A doctor of Anthropology probably knows less about mathematics than an undergraduate math major.

This smells like partisan hackery for the sake of partisan hackery. And didn't this happen a while back anyway?

I agree. I hadn't realized that the source was Fox News. I'm surprised that such a fair and balanced organization would resort to such partisan hackery. Tsk. :rolleyes:

In academic texts, you're not allowed to cite Wikipedia, otherwise the professor isn't paying enough attention. The superficial reason is that it's like citing "found on Google" or "Britannica": it doesn't tell where the information comes from. The real reason is that in academic text, you have to cite a primary source as your first choice. Textbooks, encyclopedias, reviews or other such are secondary sources.

Yes, it means that if you write serious academic texts on relativity, you have to dig up the original Einstein if possible.

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia "that anyone can edit". So why is it such a scandal when someone takes them at their word? Or are they really not what they claim to be?

My take on Wikipedia is that it's a good source for getting a general overview on a subject (like a print encyclopedia, although its online format makes it more comprehensive and more flexible) so long as you take everything with a grain of salt. Its information is actually surprisingly accurate overall, because it is used so much that mistakes/hijacks tend to be caught quickly and corrected. However, it isn't a good research source anymore than a print encyclopedia, and it does tend to face challenges such as the recent revelation that a right-wing hack was being paid to insert conservative spin into Wikipedia articles. Therein lies the rub of democracy of information: sooner or later politics enter into that democracy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html

One more reason why Wikipedia is not a trusted source in the realm of Academia.



Seems like one of their editors tried to pass himself off as a tenured professor and he wound up being a 24yo college drop out.

What are you thoughts on this.

My thoughts remain the same :

Wikipedia is very helpful to get a quick insight into issues you've got no clue about. It's not there to provide all the details you need, nor are those details necessarily correct. If you want to go deeper into the issue, follow the links provided in wikipedia articles, or better yet, go and get a book on the subject.

I wouldn't want to see it used as a form of academic resource, but it works perfectly fine as an everyday-kind of lexicon.

...

Since when has Wikipedia ever been claimed to be 'a trusted source in the realm of Academia'? It's very nature, that of open-sourced code able to be edited by anyone at any time, negates any true academic value.

Are you saying that the number of African elephants hasn't tripled in the last few years?

It's very nature, that of open-sourced code able to be edited by anyone at any time, negates any true academic value.Actually, it's quite valuable in the Academic world, just not as reference in academic papers. A lot of my professors have used pieces from wikipedia in their lectures in various ways; usually as a sort of 'general view' on subjects, to be complemented or contrasted with academic literature.

So...what has he put in an article that's wrong?

There's always Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page).

but what about Liberpedia?

People lying about their credentials on the internet!? Impossible!

PROTIP: Pretty much everyone on Earth lies about their credentials on the internet. Therefore, it's the content of their work and not their "credentials" that matter.

Hopefully, this will contribute to a decline in the Wiki-quotes and -refferences. I only believe Wiki if i already know what I read there. Needless to say, I don't use it that much.

Hopefully, this will contribute to a decline in the Wiki-quotes and -refferences. I only believe Wiki if i already know what I read there. Needless to say, I don't use it that much.

So, where do you go if you need a quick look-up on something?

Stop. Using. Fox.

Stop. Using. Fox.

Grow. The. Hell. Up.

Grow. The. Hell. Up.

You. First.

Anyone got a theory about the smudged source?

The state I live in, many colleges and high schools allow Wikipedia references (My friends do it all the time) in college essays, etc. The method of citing it is even in the college's official essay manual on how to do references (What is that page/manual called?) I remember seeing it.

Hopefully, this will contribute to a decline in the Wiki-quotes and -refferences.

why should it?

Thank God then I go to a better university that does not allow Wikipedia.

any university that gives you passing grades cannot be a 'better university'

The state I live in, many colleges and high schools allow Wikipedia references (My friends do it all the time) in college essays, etc.

Thank God then I go to a better university that does not allow Wikipedia.

If he got his shit straight, what's the big deal if he's a professor or a nerd with too much time on his hands?

Exactly.

I know too many people with letters after their names who are total idiots IN THEIR OWN FIELD to assume that a lack of said letters ensures anything.

No shit, sherlock. Try referencing a normal encyclopaedia in an academic essay and see how well that'll go down. Why would wiki be any different?

But this shining fact is always ignored in these discussions.

But this shining fact is always ignored in these discussions.

why should corny start worrying about facts now?

:rolleyes:

Does that indicate a lack of worry?

why should corny start worrying about facts now?

:rolleyes:

It's a handy reference for immediate searches; but no, I wouldn't use it in a scholarly debate or some important essay.

People lying about their credentials on the internet!? Impossible!

"hot girl in chat room actually 43 year old man, lives in mom's basement - shocking audio tapes at 9!"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html

One more reason why Wikipedia is not a trusted source in the realm of Academia.



Seems like one of their editors tried to pass himself off as a tenured professor and he wound up being a 24yo college drop out.

What are you thoughts on this.
My thoughts are about elephants, of course.

What are you thoughts on this.

So what? It's not like I'm citing Wiki in any of my papers anyways.

Wiki remains a good starting point to track down further information...which makes it a useful tool.

It's also at least three times more reliable than Fox News.

My tutors have already threatened the breaking of limbs if any of us undergrads cite Wikipedia. And why would we?

As many posters have said before, using an online source that can be accessed and edited by any user for anything more than information gathering is just stupid. Any academic institution accepting submissions with uncredited online sources is staffed by fools and nincompoops.

"hot girl in chat room actually 43 year old man, lives in mom's basement - shocking audio tapes at 9!"

http://blog.dreamhost.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/serious.jpg

Sorry, I had to.

So, where do you go if you need a quick look-up on something?

Usually I google it and exersice a bit source critique. Ask Jeeves is rather good for some topics. Then there is those archaic items crafted from dead trees.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html

One more reason why Wikipedia is not a trusted source in the realm of Academia.



Seems like one of their editors tried to pass himself off as a tenured professor and he wound up being a 24yo college drop out.

What are you thoughts on this.

my thought is that foxnews has a vested intrest in discrediting and bringing to public attention that discredit, anything more honest then itself, which in the case of foxnews, is probably just about everything.

as for wikipedia, i mean hey, this is the internet, we're all participants, unlike controled corporate media, which is why the're always trying to discredit it, but that aside, sure, even a one legged man can BE tarzan. i think the point that is being attempted to be discredited here is precisely the diversity of sources when and where we can all participate, bringing us a diversity of information, ok, so none of it is 100% reliably accurate, but foxnews damd sure isn't, at least not in its selectivity of presentation, that gives precisely the sort of insights that state, or in this case state via corporate, controlled media, is in the bussiness of keeping us from having, getting, seeing, understanding.

the free flow of information, even innaccurate information, IF it is sufficiently diverse, is a public service. one which corporate media, mandated to provide, under the very terms of media licensing, is NOT providing, and other then alternative media, is ADAMANTLY refusing to provide in any real, and even remotely useful, sense.

=^^=
.../\...

Wikipedia is one source of information. When we seek information we have to make certain judgements:
These include judgements such as:
What do we intend to use the information for?
On how critical accuracy is?
Do we need an objective and impartial view point?
How much time do we have to spend researching that information?

We then find a source that meets these but also
consider

Do we trust the source for the purpose we require?
Is the source sufficiently accessible for the purpose required?
Can I check my source?

Wikipedia is probably not appropriate as an academic source but it may well help you find good appropriate sources and certainly encourages people to think.

There's always Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page).

Ok followed the link found the following welcoming statement from Conservapedia
With new updates every day, Conservapedia will become a vast network for people to learn the facts the way they ought to be told.

Anyone who says "to learn the facts the way they ought to be told" has me running for my copies of 1984, Animal Farm and Brave New World.

This is fucking retarded. Who cares what his credentials are? As long as his stuff is accurate. How long until "The Free Encyclopedia " becomes not so free?

"Someone Lies About Their Identity On Internet"

Seriously, for the life of me I can not see how this is news. It was even the most linked-to North America news article on BBC news a couple of days ago, and I can't see why! People lying about their lives is what the Internet is all about.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go hang-gliding with Eva Longoria...

"Someone Lies About Their Identity On Internet"

Seriously, for the life of me I can not see how this is news. It was even the most linked-to North America news article on BBC news a couple of days ago, and I can't see why! People lying about their lives is what the Internet is all about.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go hang-gliding with Eva Longoria...

OK, then. I'm gonna get Trump to get me some pancakes. :D

This is fucking retarded. Who cares what his credentials are? As long as his stuff is accurate. How long until "The Free Encyclopedia " becomes not so free?

I've wonderred that often myself.

I am baffled as to why credentials should matter. Wikipedia clearly states that personal expertise cannot be used as a source. So unless you've pulished your research, you can't use it.

That said. The wikipedia editing community is often hostile and they are very stuck up.:mad: Most of them are at any rate. I like copy editing and I think it's a good skill to keep sharp, so I used to copy edit wikipedia articles. I've gotten my head bitten off more than once for the content's accuracy. Even though I explain in discussion part of the article 9before I even begin) that I'm only copy editing. So I don't copy edit anymore. [/rant]

Am I the only one that thinks this deserves a resounding "Meh"?

Am I the only one that thinks this deserves a resounding "Meh"?

Considering how many people have said things dismissive of this "scandal", I'd have to say no, you're not the only one who thinks this deserves a resounding "Meh".

It is retarded for people to use any encyclopedia for professional research, let alone wikipedia.

Grow. The. Hell. Up.
I agree. As if other news sources are much better than Fox. BBC practically admitted to being biased! Newsflash: almost ALL newstations are biased, and many spin the news in their favour. Fox is not the only one!

Wikipedia is a truly remarkable resource. It is the most remarkable, certainly the most successful, resource ever to come out of the great publishing corporations of Ursa Minor. More popular than the Celestial Home Care Omnibus, more referred to than Fifty Three Things to Do in Zero Gravity, and more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters - Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who is this God Person Anyway?

Wikipedia is a truly remarkable resource. It is the most remarkable, certainly the most successful, resource ever to come out of the great publishing corporations of Ursa Minor. More popular than the Celestial Home Care Omnibus, more referred to than Fifty Three Things to Do in Zero Gravity, and more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters - Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who is this God Person Anyway?

Exactly. Adams dreamed it up long ago...

I agree. As if other news sources are much better than Fox. BBC practically admitted to being biased! Newsflash: almost ALL newstations are biased, and many spin the news in their favour. Fox is not the only one!

BBC biasesd! It can't be! Auntie's paid for with taxes and is run by the state....ah, wait a minute.....

...his 20,000 or more entries in the Wikipedia have never been called into question.

People lie on the internet all the time, for better or worse.

Aren't you one of those anti-Wiki arseholes. If so, :upyours:

Exactly. Adams dreamed it up long ago...

It's what I thought when I first came across it. I wonder if Adams came across it? When did he die and when did Wiki first come into existence? Hmmm... where to find such answers...