When Did Wiki become A reliable Source??.....

When???????????????

Rant over...

Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology,[7] pharmaceuticals,[8] and psychiatry[9] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard

Wiki

reply to post by EvanB


Wikipedia isn't a source. It's a collection of SOURCE material put into one area. The sources are at the bottom of the page if you didn't notice.

Personally, I would never state anything that I read on Wikipedia as being an absolute fact. I try to avoid mentioning it in regards to anything at all, but I do mention it occasionally. On those occasions, I always make it a point to clarify it by saying something similar to, "Well, according to Wiki......"

Now with that being said: I cannot think of a single time that I have ever knowingly read any important false information on Wikipedia. Maybe a few small irrelevant errors, but nothing that mattered.





P.S. That is undoubtedly the single most pathetic rant I have ever read.
[color=717171](This↑ short sentence is a much better rant than yours.) lol

People always say that anyone can go on and edit a wiki. False! Have you tried? If you are not a doctor or professor, and if you don't provide a reliable source, they will not accept your edit, and will ban you from editing there. Wiki is no less accurate than a book or a paper encyclopedia, it lists its sources at the bottom of each page just as paper books and encyclopedias do.

I would have gone with "When did blogs or youtube become a reliable source"

WHEN?????????

When did trusting a single publisher with potential bias become a reliable source. I'm so sick of hearing that wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information. Nothing is a purely accurate and reliable source of information! I challenge you to edit a Wikipedia page with false information, and see how long it takes for it to be corrected! Who corrects Britannica when they put out disinfo?

reply to post by EvanB


That is a question, not a rant. Come on Evan give us some more rage.

You will notice I use Wiki all the time in my threads but I do not use them as Sources. I use it for references in order to give a clearer picture as to what it is I am describing for those that are not familiar with the people, places, things, and periods. Thus they are in the body of my threads and not at the end in the sources section.

By and large Wikipedia does not have an information problem; it has a reputation problem. Do you not trust Wikipedia to give you the correct latitude and longitude of Tacoma, Washington? Of course not. Do you doubt Wikipedia's accounting of scientific information? Nature Magazine doesn't. Have you ever published in Nature? Will you ever?

These are areas where Wikipedia is an excellent source (or meta-source, if you prefer) Where it has the most problems is in controversial issues. For example, "Climate Change." There are people who sit on Wikipedia and deem it their role to deny any information contrary to the politically correctview of Climate Change as man-made global warming. If someone attempts to provide an opposing viewpoint, it is stamped out immediately. You are simply not going to get an objective view of Climate Change from Wikipedia regardless of the soundness of your arguments and your data. If you try it will be expunged.

The same is true of any theory of economics or politics. Zealous guardians of the Righteous Way stand "protecting" Wikipedia articles from the influence of anyone who disagrees with them. For that reason Wikipedia can be deemed unreilable, but, as usual, people over-react andf condemn anything remotely associated with Wikipedia rather than bother analyzing the issue.

In terms of citations, there's nothing preventing you from looking up your subject on Wikipedia, then moving to the source material most articles provide, and cite those as primary sources. Frankly, Wiki is a pretty god way to gain a quick refresher on any issue. What was the deal with teh War of the Roses again? Look it up in Wiki and you've got the basics. In academic writing you never cite an encyclopedia anyway, but for forum posts there really is no good reason not to say, "And the basics of the issue can be found here on Wikipedia." People who object to 'basic info' citations like this are being pseudo-intellectual and just plain silly.

I challenge you to edit a Wikipedia page with false information, and see how long it takes for it to be corrected! Who corrects Britannica when they put out disinfo?

I challenge you to edit a Wikipedia page with TRUE information, and see how much QUICKLY it will become re-falsified again!

That's my experience of Wikipedia anyway. I don't know about britannica - all dictionaries, encyclopaedias/encyclopedias and the like spread only AGENDA-conforming "information". When it's not a threat to the agenda, or is irrelevant enough, it can be mostly true - but when the truth would deviate from the agenda, that's when it's a lie. The agenda has changed over the years of course - you still find pretty interesting statements in some 70's books that would NEVER be accepted today in any encyclopedia - whether they are true or not!

Political Correctness has become a big part of the agenda, as well as 'scientific nihilism', and the 'Oil Cartel control' - so when you read about free energy, men's rights or how the Universe was ACTUALLY created, what (electro)magnetism REALLY is, and so on, you will bump into a lot of propaganda and lies instead of the truth, no matter what encyclopedia you use.

I am not making distinctions between encyclopedias or dictionaries, because basically, they all come through the AGENDA, and any edits to the contrary will not be tolerated. Wikipedia is definitely not something 'everyone can edit' by a long shot. And this would be a good thing, if only vandals and disinfo agents were kept out, and if it was controlled by honest, truthful, good people (does this world even know what these qualities mean in a human being anymore?).

But it's controlled by professional liars, who blindly obey the AGENDA, and all truthful edits will be destroyed and editers will be notified and banned.

That's just how it is - not because of wikipedia per se, but because of the state of the world, that's dominated by the AGENDA in all levels, except in some insignificant, individual comments in some mason-dominated forums, not to name names..

reply to post by Shoujikina


Point me to an entry with "false" information, a reference to the "true" information, and I will gladly partake in this thought experiment.

I agree that political correctness can be an excellent tactic in promoting an agenda. It is used so commonly and consistently in all interactions, directives and sources. It's so pervasive it resembles a virus in all cultures and classes. It goes far beyond it's intentional use, and slithers through the minds of humanity unhampered. My life has been centered on noticing it and trying to point it out in others. I had a little mantra when I was growing up that I would say to myself and others... "You're head is in a box!" You can't escape that the particular way you are viewing the world, itself, is limiting any actual realistic view of the world." And that herd mentality where we merely repeat our so called political, ideological, practical and fundamental views and perspectives, flow fourth without much effort to actually break down and analyze our assumptions. This same mechanism drives political correctness, and it certainly transcends the bounds of any encyclopedia or source of information. So yes, agenda is universal and pervasive. It is perpetrated not merely by paid agents, but by our very psychology, and the blinder the end user to it's functions, often the more persistently it will be put forth. Why? Probably because the world is a big scary place, we are still scared of the darkness and wild, and neatly labeling, classifying and tucking our assumptions into organized little boxes helps us unconsciously subdue that darkness.

Now, I did a search on both Wikipedia and Britannica on free energy and men's rights, and I noticed some striking differences in results. There is at least an article on free energy suppression and the Men's rights movement on Wikipedia, where on Britannica there is none. That is why I think Wikipedia is an invaluable tool, because it is an open system where others are closed. There is always going to be disinfo and the perpetrators there of, and it has certainly become politically correct to say Wikipedia is bad info. Frankly I'd say there are allot more people out there spreading that perspective unconsciously out of political correctness, than there are deliberately editing wiki entries by both the benefactors of any agenda and their employed element combined.

reply to post by WP4YT

Originally posted by WP4YT

People always say that anyone can go on and edit a wiki. False! Have you tried? If you are not a doctor or professor, and if you don't provide a reliable source, they will not accept your edit......

I have edited articles on several different Wiki pages.

I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong, but maybe your statement doesn't apply to all topics. At the moment, I'm not in the mood to go searching for random errors, so cannot try it now.

I've probably only made changes to articles pertaining to entertainment: musicians, songs, albums, movies, T.V., etc.... so maybe it is a select few topics/categories that require additional confirmation?

or maybe that is a somewhat new rule?

I LOVE Wiki. A great place to start. Compilations of related material in one thread? It's like a buffet. Who doesn't like a buffet?

Interesting points made about Wikipedia so far.

As far as I can see, Wikipedia is the greatest centralized and referenced compilation of information on the internet, and possibly in the world. I'm speaking of the English language version.

I'm somewhat baffled and sorry that people have a problem with it. I hope that a lot of ATSers are not in this group... being that the motto of ATS is to 'Deny Ignorance'. But people can put a box over their head intellectually if they choose. It's their loss.

I'll use the English language version, and occasionally the Spanish one- which often can have more information on Latino/Spanish-related subjects. In a perfect world, the information should be the same. By the same token, the references at the bottom of the English and Spanish pages are different.... citing English and Spanish websites respectively.

What I Don't understand, is why Wikipedia started a Latin version. I don't mean an article about the Latin language... but an actual Wikipedia version containing a series of articles in the Latin language. Are they serious? It must be tongue in cheek. (following the rule that when I don't know what to do, I smile... at least it gives a good impression).