Wikipedia as a source?!?!?!

Please, people! Stop using wikipedia as a 'source'! I can go to it right now and change the entry for Jesus to say that his father was really the Purple Spagetti Monster! That doesn't make it so!

And your IP will get banned because your a retard if you do that. Wikipedia is a reliable source. That means it isn't ALWAYS right, but generally, when I look up a topic on wikipedia, it checks out.

Not to mention wikipedia asks people to leave proof. Notice the small numbers in parenthesis after most facts listed?

Its' because wikipedia does it's job to be correct. It's just a matter of unqualified people posting wrong information on it.

Originally posted by NeverSurrenderWikipedia is a reliable source. That means it isn't ALWAYS right, but generally, when I look up a topic on

Then why do schools not allow it for homework assignments

reply to post by zorgon


Maybe for the same reason I wasn't allowed to use an Encyclopedia for research.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by NeverSurrenderWikipedia is a reliable source. That means it isn't ALWAYS right, but generally, when I look up a topic on

Then why do schools not allow it for homework assignments

Zorgon? Is that you? I barely recognized you if it werent for the
WTH happened to your face???


Are you still in school?




Just teasing you

reply to post by NeverSurrender


It was supposed to be a unrealistic example. The fact that anyone can make changes, whether they are experts in the field or just your average moron makes it an unreliable source, and subject to doubt. The web is vast enough to find better sources than wikipedia! If that is the only source you can find to support your opinion, it should tell you something, now shouldn't it?

Wikipedia is a good source of information, but I mainly use it for general information. It does have some detailed articles, but those detailed articles also have detailed links, which go into more detail.
Follow my detailed train of thought here? (Ow.)
Wikiepedia is a cummulation of information, written by folks who take the time to write the article, or at least copy and paste it from another site. (Also, some people have way, way to much time on their hands.)
So, Wikipedia is useful, but in terms of actualy research, you're better off using the actual links in the article.
not to say it's not heavily managed, I remember the story of a teacher who tried to pull one over Wiki and got his IP banned for it.

This might be true, but as you said, why not use the actual source.

I consider it to be as accurate as is a pocket dictionary

when compared to a full library sized websters collegiate [ the 10 pounder ]



wiki has issues, mostly omissions of pertinent info

It should be used with caution , I have been banned for changing things that were wrong to right , someone there is out of there mind, I say there is tons of useful info there but beware there is tons of stuff that is way off

interesting
what about wilileaks, only good can come from that, i mean giving all those whistle blowers a place to expose all the corruption going on within our governments, i think wilki is cool
peace
kirky

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
This might be true, but as you said, why not use the actual source.

Because it is generally in a library, not accessable from your computer chair.

So people copy things from the library on to the computer and hopefully all of the people that post purple spaghetti monster references on jesus's page get IP banned.

Its a rather nice system if you ask me.

I see nothing wrong with using Wiki as a source, in fact I use it a lot.

Alot of the time it provides the simplest explanation for the points I want to get across.

I tend to find that people with an axe to grind against Wiki usually condemn either out of "intellectual snobbery" or because it disgarees with their viewpoint or belief.

Yes, you can edit a page to anything you like, but it normally gets edited back to the correct information pretty quickly if its absurd. And if you abuse it, you'll have your IP recorded and banned.

Any seasoned investigator/debater will tell you, however, that just checking one source is not enough. Wiki doesn't portray itself as a definitive explanation for anything, it should be used as one of a number of sources.

Information Anarchy. The wiki system is proof the anarchy model works (information is completely controlled by the entire community)

Yes people can edit entries with false information. Yet every statistical analysis that has ever been done on wiki, shows that it is just as accurate as its mainstream predecessors. At least thats what it says on wikipedia


*Edit: spelling.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by zorgon


don.t school allow it?
my son doesn.t have problems using wikipedia as information for homework, they are taught overhere to use it as a source!

I've been using Wikipedia for YEARS and I have only seen maybe half a dozen pages with inaccurate information after being attacked, and in that case it's blatently obvious that something is going on. It's not like someone is going to edit the entry for Pi and make it 3.1415926535897932384626433832791. If someone wants to ruin an article they usually make it hugely known.

Also Wikipedia is really good at locking controversial topics, etc so they can't be edited by new people anyway.

And the biggest thing is that Wikipedia PROVIDES SOURCES. It's not a primary resource but it's a great summary tool. For example if I just on a whim decide "Hmm... I want to know more about Drake's Equation" or "Hmm, I want to know more about homocysteine" I'll just look it up in Wikipedia, rather than finding and scrolling through some giant professional website (which you still have to verify is credible), or worse yet, having to physically go to a library and get a book. Books really need a CTRL+F feature.

The original problem that schools had with Wikipedia was a matter of attribution of sources. That was resolved long ago. There are tools in place now that make it impossible for the average user to drop a bomb of misinformation and simply get away with it.

The editing is carefully tracked. Also the data in there is MORE often of higher accuracy than what you can find from commercially biased sources.

Also, there are sub-communities of user policing the thing non-stop, and many are extremely ethical and academically-minded people. Self-policing this way allows for some really interesting comments on the editorial pages (sort of like ATS in that light).

I tell my kids to use Wikipedia as a starting point to their research, but you MUST visit the citation sources to make sure you agree. Those who still object to Wiki are usually the less likely to participate in cyber-community projects like this. They are married to paper, and trust nothing they cant highlight and underline.

Also Wiki has managed to manoeuvre itself into the number 1 spot for online Encyclopedias

Most people use it because it's the most well known and comes up first in searches.

[edit on 15/9/08 by blupblup]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Yet every statistical analysis that has ever been done on wiki, shows that it is just as accurate as its mainstream predecessors. At least thats what it says on wikipedia

I have seen the same assertion in several places NOT associated with Wikipedia as well.

For those who do not trust Wikipedia's self reporting on the issue, here is an outside report about their reliability.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.