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.

 

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

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Yes to Wiki

99%+ of the information on there is sourced. Sure, some garbage slips through; however, I believe Wiki does a good job of weeding it out.

Wiki is always a good starting point. If someone doubts the credibility of a wiki entry, then they can always check the referenced source for accuracy.

I'll take wiki as truth over a random blog any day of the week.
edit on 27-5-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I dont allow my children to use wiki as a source when they do research for school. They are urged to actually research and digest their own information. Id hope that adults would do the same if they truly wish to understand a subject.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Then there are those who ultimately rely on Wiki for their points of argument and will not do the work to substantiate their work. I have always been of the opinion the more sources the better your argument. Take for example the poster that was trying to prove his posting point by quoting himself as published in Wiki and other blogs. I am not saying the person was an idiot or anything, but quoting yourself is not a valid point of argument even if you were published in the best of journals.

I have found spot on information in Wiki, but I have found dead wrong info as well. I agree with brianboru that Wiki has improved over the years, but it has a dynamic structure that will inherently continue to change as time goes on. This would be a good way to rewrite history, if one had the mind to. Hard copy material is difficult to change once it is published. Wiki can be changed pretty much at a mere whim.

And, how about those topic sitters that lay in wait for anyone who would edit/correct/change their beloved view that has been placed on Wiki and immediately re-edit the material.

On one hand it is a decent source for mundane material that most people don't have a passion for. But, oh brother, those topics that inflame the passion, watch out because that material is a hot bed changes and edits.

I can't vote strictly yes or no. My thought would be to allow the reference, but understand that it is questionable and not considered reliable unless backed by other hard copy material. But how do you do that when it seems half the people that post use only Wiki as their sources and are unwilling to use any other references.

My vote would be ummmmmm . . . . I guess I am not voting



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
NO!!!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
i'll bet more people quote youtube than wiki, like talking cats and dogs, 6 million hits



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage
I dont allow my children to use wiki as a source when they do research for school. They are urged to actually research and digest their own information. Id hope that adults would do the same if they truly wish to understand a subject.


That is admirable; however, let's not forget that we don't live in libraries and most of us are not children. When debating a topic online it is not very productive to go to the library just to draft a rebuttal to an argument. Sure, If I were writing a research paper, I would hit the library....but isn't that the gist of Wiki, to be an online encyclopedia? While we can't necessarily take Wiki at face value, the references provided can certainly be verified, if necessary, via a trip to the library.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Yes on Wiki Sources.

There are numerous reports showing the validity of their information, they are a great hub to other sources.

The alternative is what then? Only allow sources from agenda slanted bloggers or the MSM? No thanks.

The impetus is on the individual utilizing Wiki as a source to back up the claim IF challenged, it's their own fault IF their research or point only ends at a wiki page.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
In my personal accounts of using wikipedia I have rarely seen wrong information. Of course, wikipedia cannot always be right but among the few errors lies a ton of good knowledge. It's not my problem if someone can't tell the difference between good info and bad info on a topic. Yes, I agree for a lot of things a different source than wikipedia might be appropriate but to completely dismiss wikipedia as a bad source, I think we'd be missing a good source for quick access to simple data.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Advantage
I dont allow my children to use wiki as a source when they do research for school. They are urged to actually research and digest their own information. Id hope that adults would do the same if they truly wish to understand a subject.


That is admirable; however, let's not forget that we don't live in libraries and most of us are not children. When debating a topic online it is not very productive to go to the library just to draft a rebuttal to an argument. Sure, If I were writing a research paper, I would hit the library....but isn't that the gist of Wiki, to be an online encyclopedia? While we can't necessarily take Wiki at face value, the references provided can certainly be verified, if necessary, via a trip to the library.


You dont have to go to a library and I never mentioned going to a library. There are a plethora of places to actually do research online. Wiki isnt the depot of all knowledge.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Advantage
I dont allow my children to use wiki as a source when they do research for school. They are urged to actually research and digest their own information. Id hope that adults would do the same if they truly wish to understand a subject.


That is admirable; however, let's not forget that we don't live in libraries and most of us are not children. When debating a topic online it is not very productive to go to the library just to draft a rebuttal to an argument. Sure, If I were writing a research paper, I would hit the library....but isn't that the gist of Wiki, to be an online encyclopedia? While we can't necessarily take Wiki at face value, the references provided can certainly be verified, if necessary, via a trip to the library.


You dont have to go to a library and I never mentioned going to a library. There are a plethora of places to actually do research online. Wiki isnt the depot of all knowledge.


I was not suggesting that you required a library for information; however, what alternative would you suggest? What online source is any more credible? Wiki provides sources for the information contained within; something that most other online sources do not provide.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Yes.

If you want to use wiki to find out JFK's birthday, it's fine.

If you are looking for information on a conspiracy behind his murder, then it's crap.

This question would be better suited for blogs. IMO



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rstregooski
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...


As an academic, I support the above statement.
This is the wisest thing to do.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
NO

Simple reason in fact wiki has a good function as a search tool,

Lots of the articles are sourced,

Read the articles, remove any slant.

Same as here, if the SOURCE quoted could be used why not direct and mention linked via wiki page?

Saves maybe 40-60% whatever that is commercial on net besides porn coming up in most searchs of subject matter.

Can save time.

Can make you look stupid.

Wiki's not good or bad ,Source books to refs in back when read them always check:-)

My Rant

Elf



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Advantage

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Advantage
I dont allow my children to use wiki as a source when they do research for school. They are urged to actually research and digest their own information. Id hope that adults would do the same if they truly wish to understand a subject.


That is admirable; however, let's not forget that we don't live in libraries and most of us are not children. When debating a topic online it is not very productive to go to the library just to draft a rebuttal to an argument. Sure, If I were writing a research paper, I would hit the library....but isn't that the gist of Wiki, to be an online encyclopedia? While we can't necessarily take Wiki at face value, the references provided can certainly be verified, if necessary, via a trip to the library.


You dont have to go to a library and I never mentioned going to a library. There are a plethora of places to actually do research online. Wiki isnt the depot of all knowledge.


I was not suggesting that you required a library for information; however, what alternative would you suggest? What online source is any more credible? Wiki provides sources for the information contained within; something that most other online sources do not provide.


What online source? The entire internet is at your fingertips encompassing nearly any subject that you want to learn about or research. My children can handle this.. so can adults. In my original post I mentioned research.. to research you dont need a depot. You start searching your subject and read from many sources. You compile information and then use it. Pretty simple. Wiki even when correct is like babyfood. Its already digested for you. You can not rely on it due to the editing and the largest part is that you arent actually researching when you use wiki.. youre parroting what someone else has already compiled and digested for you. The reason I dont allow the kids to use wiki as an "encyclopedia" is because Id rather them do a little work, seek out data, digest the data, and then do the work.

I never said to ban use of wiki. IMO its fine for stats of youre into them or other things.. but to use it as research is ridiculous. To use it as a source is also ridiculous if you are not vetting the info youre using as fact given that wiki can be edited. To take something at face value because its billed as an encyclopedia is like coming here and swallowing something someone posts hook, line, and sinker regardless of their own spin put on it without even doing a little fact checking yourself.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
NO

Simple reason in fact wiki has a good function as a search tool,

Lots of the articles are sourced,

Read the articles, remove any slant.

Same as here, if the SOURCE quoted could be used why not direct and mention linked via wiki page?

Saves maybe 40-60% whatever that is commercial on net besides porn coming up in most searchs of subject matter.

Can save time.

Can make you look stupid.

Wiki's not good or bad ,Source books to refs in back when read them always check:-)

My Rant

Elf


EXACTLY what Im talking about


Using it as a search tool is great. Using it as your research alone is not so great


edit on 27-5-2011 by Advantage because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2011 by Advantage because: cant spell today



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I vote "yes". It's a hell of a lot better source than having to read referenced "facts" from "CommieBlaster.Com"...



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CodyOutlaw
 


The question was not whether wikiipedia was a valid source, but whether people on ATS should be allowed to post material from it.

I cannot think of a good argument why they should not. If you ban wikipedia, you would have to ban a lot of other even more questionable sources of "information" people are wont to use around here.

It will sure keep the mods hopping to keep up with the latest round of crank blogs, and (of course) people would miss their youtube videos -- most of which are unwatchable tripe IMO.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
wiki yes

Death to tyranny!

It is just a reference!

"Whom controls the past controls the present controls the future" now what about this quote do you not understand as it applies to all sources information?

Lotta talk of BANNING and other Tyranical nonsense = I am about to delete my account and I just got here!

The CoC, any CoC these days is hard enough to swallow let alone all this folly.

Seriously, just remove the words you do not want us to say, bleep out anything we say by accident, wghy dont you just decide what we will say on here, send the script to our emails boxes and get a bot to come here cut and paste style like the governments personel management software...what conspiracy???

Calm down... you know the shape of an IQ chart and thus you must remind yourself that while you are armed to the teeth others are barely able to stand on their own two feet.... calm....inner peace....

Carry on with your own demise...



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Serafine
 


Yes Wikipedia



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join