It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikipedia as a source?? Not so sure anymore

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 05:35 AM
link   
So last night I went down a rabbit hole. Got sidetracked from 1 thing to another and wound up on a wiki article. I will start another thread later on that because I was pretty taken back but I need time on that one.
Anyway as I am reading it says author blah blah blah said this. I could not believe it cause it sounded like bull# so I check the source.
It was a Usenet post from 2002.

Is that normal?

That's like citing author tinysicktears and a post from here.

That # is not a source and me posting # on here does not qualify me as an author.

I know people have been saying don't use wiki as a source but most of us do. I do and while I know it is probably not the best I usually consider them pretty solid.
Not so sure now.

Any thoughts




posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

"Wikipedia is not a valid, or credible source of information" - Every high school teacher and university professor ever

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and is trolled often



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Do what I always do, use it for reference in common chit chat. Use it as a launching point for cited work. It sounds like you did before so why stop now over one article, that might have the questionable reference removed at any time or remove it yourself.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Wiki was sampled for accuracy a few years ago and came out slightly better than popular encyclopaedias. It's a great source of information and works for the benefit of mankind in general. Of course people will find problems and take issue with certain topics, but it's a working document and to be expected. It's an enormous project without an enormous budget.

Naturally, there will also be a section of people who won't ever be happy with it. They should go and buy a set of Britannicas and bring page numbers and correct citations to social media lol. They want to bitch and put things down without ever offering reasonable alternatives. What do they want? Payment for reading it? It's a FREE resource created by hundreds of thousands of working hours by people who want to share knowledge.

...but no. There's a frigging error on some obscure topic so its all 'fake.'



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

It's how it works it's a closed self veryfying system. As long as it's on the internet it can and will be referenced. We are all no authorities in anyway right? Just people. I would keep that in mind with everything I read.
All written by just some guy/gal.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   
I only ever use wiki for background stuff, just to get a general idea. I almost never use it as a source it’s just to easy to go in and edit a entry with rubbish.

I thought this was common knowledge



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

I never took it as gospel but I also just assumed sources were not Usenet posts as a source. That's what sits funny with me.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: misterhistory

Cause what I read just really hit me I guess.

The whole Usenet thing just tossed me for a loop



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
So last night I went down a rabbit hole. Got sidetracked from 1 thing to another and wound up on a wiki article..

Is that normal?

Any thoughts


LOL, I do that all the time.....



In regards to Wikipedia being a source for information / linking, all I can say is 'proceed with caution'...

Funny Wikipedia Mistakes




posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears


It's a good amalgamator for sources if the footnotes are still active. I typically check those before quoting a specific section of text related to them, or actually link that source directly.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Yeah unfortunately Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an account and is sometimes trolled. Best thing to do is cross reference it with other sources if you want to be sure of the facts. It’s still a good site with lots of great information though. Just never take what it has to say as gospel so to speak.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
That is one of the 'Big 3'..

#1) Wikipedia™ is just a source.

#2) Who snoped Snopes™?

#3) If someone types "Google™ is Your friend..." they are lying to You.

Stay Hydrated...



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

I know but you can usually tell when it is a troll edit. It's blatant. This was not and I think most would take it as true. I will get into it later with the thread.

Need to get home and get into relax mode



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

That’s a fair point. I only spotted the crapola bs wiki edit I came across because I knew the subject well enough. It wasn’t done very smartly either. But someone with no knowledge in that particular subject could have easily fallen for the ruse.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
The Wiki [References] are the problem.

Often those [References] are not even available for review or they are just sloppy academic opinions.




posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

You found one wiki link to something questionable?


(glad you got your car fixed)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
It's as good a place to start as anywhere. Always back up your info with other sources though.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TinySickTears

You found one wiki link to something questionable?


(glad you got your car fixed)


I am less concerned with a questionable article of fact but not digging a Usenet post as a source with the poster being called an author.
That is my whole point. Stupid me I guess. I just assumed the sources would be books or magazine articles. Newspaper article. Yes I know those are not gospel either but it's far different than a Usenet post



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
If you use it like you did and check the sources you should be fine, it's a good starting point.
It also depends on the subject, somethings are easier to colloborate where as history is often written by the winners, science will have papers that can be checked, maths is maths, sport has witnesses and in modern day has footage etc.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

I actually like Wikipedia. Sure, there will be wrong information here and there, the same as anything else. But at least it has references you can check on each article and judge for yourself.

Can't say that about a lot of other sources of information on the internet.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join