If you Deny Ignorance...then don't Wiki

The Co-founder of Wikipedia recently admitted to having some serious quality issues. Co-founder Jimmy Wales was responding to author Nicholas Carr who wrote about it in his blog RoughType. In fact the actual article is The amorality of Web 2.0 in which Carr writes:



Important message in bold. An unreliable factual source.

More here:
Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems

Jimmy Wales has also just been promoted to the Board of Directors for Wiki and he wants to push Wiki to be a true free knowledge base. To do that though...he will have to face the challenges.


Jimmy Wales Joins Socialtext Board of Directors
Wikibooks takes on textbook industry

In the end, if you want to find truth and Deny Ignorance....don't bother with Wiki. Until the matter is solved (can it be?) then it will remain nothing more than an unreliable source.

wow very good find. I personally would have never really used it as a factual source in the first place for any kind of paper. (I'm out of school but if i were still in school)

It's better than google at getting a starting point for information on a particular subject.

The information on there almost always has supportig links that you can go to and verify the information in the Wiki articles.

If you are unsure of any of it you can always double check with alternate sources. That's what I usually do.

Wiki is useful and is almost always accurate on the subjects that I've researched.

[edit on 18-10-2005 by AceOfBase]

I guess it depends on what you search for. For my research on Bertolt Brecht it was 100% correct with everything I needed to know for my german class. I don't quite see where the huge suprise in the claims comes from however. Wikipedia is no different than ATS, its a collection of code connected to a database which is populated by information provided by the same humans prone to mistakes, lies, deception, etc. There really isint much of a way to cure the problem, just work with the assumption that everthing you see on the internet be it here on ATS, Wiki, Google or otherwise is suspect and not to be trusted.

I only use that site for things that would be of no benefit to lie about, like planting seeds. Not for looking for any answers above that level.

WikiPedia is unique in that anybody can anonymously add and subtract things from the articles. Articles can be put "under review" for bias and correctness, and during this process, the articles are discussed at length in forums.

WikiPedia's quality increases as the factual basis of the articles is increased - for instance, quality of data is high in regard to such items as histories and biographies, but quality is decreased as the ambiguity or conceptual basis of a subject is heightened. This, of course, makes sense as WikiPedia is only a single outlet for information, regardless of the number of people who submit information for the articles, and by its nature it tends towards a liberal bias.

In short, I would say, trust WikiPedia for objective information, but consider multiple sources (including WikiPedia) for subjective data.

Zip

Can anyone list a topic were wikipedia is way off with their information?

I'd have to agree, it is a great starting point and there are many links to back up the info found.

Yes, there are problems since anyone can add, edit, or delete info there but even textbooks have bias so you have to filter and cross reference just like with anything else to get the broad picture.

[edit on 10/19/05 by redmage]

as a student, wikipedia is truely a very useful source, their info are always clear. my friends and i, even my teachers, suggested us to use the site cause it's useful and also has it in different languages, anyway, its nice to know that they will try to improve

``
here's an article from TIME
which looks at Technology in article; 'The Road Ahead'

the opening paragraph brings up Wikipedia and its'
'collective intelligence' model of things that will change our lives...

www.time.com...
->8 pages in length

The concept of the Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. To have an 'editable' encyclopedia is as asinine as this billboard:

external image

I find it very disrespectful to those who are life-long students of english, history, etymology, theology, biology and just about any other 'ology' you can think of.

Thank you ZeddicusZulZorander, for talking sense to anyone who cares one iota about truth.

By the way, I did like the BattleChaser's series. To bad it had such a short run... external image

Pray, train, study,
God bless.


[edit on 19-10-2005 by saint4God]

Seriously, that billboard has to be fake

Anyway, wikipedia isn't really that great. I use it to quickly get info but thats about it.

www.howstuffworks.com... is alot better.

How 'bout these?

external image

external image

external image

external image

external image

external image

Sometimes us humans need to take a hard look and think "Is an editable encyclopedia really a good idea?" After all, we could have one of the above sign-makers 'editing' the very definitions of what we're seeking to learn more about.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by saint4God]

That 4th sign just made me burst out laughing

Anyway, I just kinda realised it in my IT lesson.....

You can simply go onto wiki and edit a page to whatever you want...... I couldn't believe it at first, lol.

An excellent summation. Both are horrible sources. You would've cite a google search in a research paper, nor would you cite the wikipedia. But they are great for discussion boards and getting an informal understanding.

They are not authoritative, but that doesn't mean that they don't have use.


Sure, what topic would you like for me to make way off?

Thats the weakness of the wiki-format. The great strength is that it requires practically no work from the people that set it up and the members fill it in. For example, lets say that there is no enyclopedia on a set of topics, likesay the aircraft industry. *shrugs* Someone sets up an Aircraft Industry Wiki, which probably means little more than setting up webspace, and spreads the word. Before long, there are articles on all sorts of things and people can reference them.

You wouldn't want to build an aircraft from it of course, but there's the information in a nice easily accessible set.

Glad you enjoyed it too .



I think I'll change the whole thing to my "Christian Fundie" viewpoints! What do you all think?

[edit on 19-10-2005 by saint4God]

I enjoy wikipedia. I know it's not authorative, and I know that none of it can be taken as "Fact" unless the fact was already known. But it still works, at least for me. It's far from perfect, but there are a lot of people working on it that are dedicated to quality and ensuring that things are as accurate as possible, and many of them are verified, modified or deleted as appropriate. Sure there's some swiney "pirates" on there who just vandalise pages or post disinformation on purpose, but I can deal with that. Many a time have I suddenly thought of something I've always wanted to know about but couldn't be bothered to read about, and so far wikipedia has done a good job of giving me the basic information I wanted.

So like it's been said, if you just want to get the basics of an idea or subject you've never previously researched, or just want some little tidbit of trivial information that Google can't seem to find, it's great.

Would you like to make some roadsigns? Just kidding! Please don't hurt me. Love ya's.

There's your sign

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

Can't breath!!!!

Is there a website where you can purches these signs?? I'll pay big money!! lol