Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

VOTE... ATS Policy of NO Wikipedia Sources permited on ATS ( yes or no )

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Just read through a brilliant Thread by AnteBellum .. here ----> www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a simple vote and as pointed out in the OP of that Thread, is Wikipedia a reliable source for ATS posts? A Yes or No Vote will do for some sort of ATS member Ethnographic whatnot...

Should ATS have a NO Wiki Sources policy?

vote is either... No wiki sources or Yes wiki sources

Serafine Vote = NO WIKI SOURCES




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Almost have to allow them or 99% of the people on this site wouldn't know much. I'm not knocking anyone just saying most don't know how to research if it takes longer than 2 minutes.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I try to void wiki, but sometimes I do get lazy. . . .



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Yes Wikipedia...why not? Everything on this site comes from some source and very few of them can be completely checked out. Youtube is a good example...it's allowed and it is so full of garbage that it's scary.

Also I use it and although it is not solid...it's a good starting point for research.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Serafine
 


YES wiki sources (qualm - confirm wiki sources/citations or be ready to defend info presented accordingly).

While there is a general issue of "buyer beware", people should always be mindful, as with anything to "Prove all things, and hold fast that which is true".

There have actually been quite a few interesting analyses of wikipedia done giving it comparable rating to Encyclopedia Britannica and the like, and wiki generally does a good job of providing links to source information. I'm not aware of other sources allowing such open self-policing as occurs with Wikipedia and people catching errors to correct on a quick and normal basis.

As with anything, including "approved" sources, this should be taken with a grain of salt and verified on a regular basis, but then again I've never been a fan of censorship or limitation as I take responsibility for being my own arse


Sidenote:
For me, it's a case of elitism vs. populism (or whatnot). Just as some people feel only wizards on the Hill in DC can lead the US accordingly, some feel that only wizards in some giant informational or news source establishment can provide information accurately. I tend to disagree and feel that a free-market approach can adequately self-police for correction on a comparative level to "approved" sources.
edit on 5/27/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I vote Yes, that we should allow for wikipeadia sources. They are a good point and source to use as it can gives more reference to other sources that back up the data. It should not be the only source, but should be used.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
wiki is good for basic issues and common knowledge that we sometimes cant remember by memory alone.

now any issue that is a hot topic, highly debatable and controversial, like lets say the israeli-palestinian conflict, wiki is not a good source.
but from there to an overall ban of using, i dont know.

if anything i like to know what is written there, because ill know what to expect from those who see wiki as factual and unbiased source.

i uphold my right to not vote on this one


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I am a university professor. I used to tell students to avoid it, but (with a few occasional exceptions) it has become a generally accurate source of information on quite a plethora of subjects. It is a tribute to collective intelligence at this point. Disinformation usually gets corrected in a fairly timely manner.

That definitely wasn't true when it first started.

Absolutely, it should be allowed to be posted material. No one should take it to be the last word on any controversial topic, though. Far from it. People must still use their own judgment and discernment.

What is the point in censoring the material, though -- or anything else for the matter?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
No- Wikipedia should not be cited in the media nor anywhere for support because it is no different than quoting various anonymous sources who have no knowledge of the topic or who have fibs to spread about the topic.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jtripp6
 


Just like the politically-driven media?




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Serafine
 


I am against such censorship. People include all kinds of sources that are unreliable. Would you still allow links to blogs?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtripp6
No- Wikipedia should not be cited in the media nor anywhere for support because it is no different than quoting various anonymous sources who have no knowledge of the topic or who have fibs to spread about the topic.


You realize Wikipedia cites its own sources right?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Wiki can be ok at times, even though it's not reliable.

I would rather vote for no facebook sources.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Serafine
 


I say impose the College University Law: If you want to source from a Wiki page, then follow and use the source at the end of the wiki article provided (If creditable).. And if there isn't one, then there's no valid source.. Boom. Wiki alone of course can be edited by anyone...



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Serafine
 


As I posted in the thread you linked, I wouldn't consider it all 100% fact but that doesn't mean it's not worthy of being a source of info. You should still try to check other sites and cross-reference the info (or at least check the citations) if you're using it as a serious source for a serious topic.

I vote yes.

Besides, if you disallow Wikipedia, then you might as well disallow YouTube too, so, no thanks.
edit on 27/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


but anyone can edit those sources. subject to admin acceptance



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
this could easily turn into a slippery slope, once you ban one type of source then soon it will be another and then another. Just because people use wikipedia as a source does not stop the reader from doing their own research about the issue that is in the thread. They can determine if they believe it or not.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
youtube a credible source? alien videos are a good example



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Sure, let's initiate censorship. We can start with that. Next will be another site we don't like, before long ATS will be just like the beast that is the government. Get it through your head: freedom has its price, like it, live it or be part of the problem.
edit on 27-5-2011 by pajoly because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
credibilty is a key note here. the "2 minute people" will look there for an answer and base that on fact.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join