POLL: Do you trust Wikipedia and / or Snopes?

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
point us to something on Snopes you don't believe????

I don't save links to Snopes, but I know on more than one occasion Snope's has denied something, only to reverse that denial when you actually read the details It goes like this:

Ah, I found a real example.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Put Paid

Claim: In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.

Status: False.

But then, reading further...

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11

So, if the unusual trading REALLY DID OCCUR, why is this claim listed as false?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Snopes yes, Wiki no.

Wiki is a dumping ground for a whole lot of useful facts and a whole lot of useless misinformation. You cannot tell one from the other without a 2nd or 3rd source. Therefore intelligent people skip Wiki altogether and move straight to the 2nd and 3rd sources. Snopes on the other hand is right all of the time. I have NEVER seen something on Snopes that was bogus while on Wiki that's a common occurance. Snopes clearly shows the research that went into their conclusions and traces the origins of the myth and most importantly, Snopes always admits when they don't have the answers. On Wiki too much of the "research" comes from children who make up the answers rather than saying "I don't know".

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
point us to something on Snopes you don't believe????

I don't save links to Snopes, but I know on more than one occasion Snope's has denied something, only to reverse that denial when you actually read the details It goes like this:

Ah, I found a real example.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Put Paid

Claim: In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.

Status: False.

But then, reading further...

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11

So, if the unusual trading REALLY DID OCCUR, why is this claim listed as false?

What? Are you serious? First off, it said that some unusual trading activity did occur which SEEMED suspicious INITIALLY. Even if it were suspicious and didn't just seem that way or seem that way only at first, that does not mean that someone who had knowledge of 9/11 was the culprit, nor does it mean that there were large quantities involved.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
point us to something on Snopes you don't believe????

I don't save links to Snopes, but I know on more than one occasion Snope's has denied something, only to reverse that denial when you actually read the details It goes like this:

Ah, I found a real example.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Put Paid

Claim: In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.

Status: False.

But then, reading further...

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11

So, if the unusual trading REALLY DID OCCUR, why is this claim listed as false?

When it was no longer ruled suspicious, and the 9/11 Commission couldn't prove it to be true, you want Snopes to list it as true?

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: torpid

What? Are you serious? First off, it said that some unusual trading activity did occur which SEEMED suspicious INITIALLY. Even if it were suspicious and didn't just seem that way or seem that way only at first, that does not mean that someone who had knowledge of 9/11 was the culprit, nor does it mean that there were large quantities involved.

It's impossible for Snopes to know what people were thinking or knew. At best it should have been listed as yellow for "identifies statements of undetermined or ambiguous veracity" listing it as false when all the real evidence shows it as true is just plain bad.

 

[gigapet]

I take just about everything with a grain of salt. especially folks that tout snopes.com as the end all be all of truthful information.

 

[TomRakewell]

Wikipedia is an entertaining novelty, but it's pretty horrible when people try to pass it off as a legitimate academic source. The "neutral point of view" garbage that's central to Wikipedia's doctrine makes it difficult to take strong authoritative stances on any topic, which hinders the ability to express an expert opinion. Furthermore, the lack of any barrier to entry means that an expert's opinion can be subject to being overruled by some random teenager who got promoted to moderator by writing thousands of entries on Harry Potter trivia. Add that to issues of rampant plagiarism, lack of source citation on thousands of articles, and delusions of grandeur by many Wikipedia members who outright view their project as a way to spite academic authority rather than embrace it, and you have a mess. The claim that it's a work in progress is also irrelevant, because the increasing scale of the site only creates more problems that need to be fixed and watched over, and as such there really is no sort of deadline or plan for when Wikipedia will consider itself a complete project and allow itself to by judged by the same rigorous standards as academic works.

What especially irritates me is the growing ubiquity of Wikipedia, namely that's it now impossible to a search on many academic topics without being flooded by the hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors out there that obscure legitimate sources. Furthermore, the problems of plagiarism and lack of citation become even more problematic because one can't parse who's copying whom and verify which information is legitimate.

Also, the Nature study comparing Britannica and Wikipedia was revealed to be fatally flawed, and Britannica published a lengthy rebuttal which made it appear that Nature was more interested in advancing some sort of controversial agenda than in presenting the facts (article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm).

I think Wikipedia is fine for what it is, but these pretenses of treating at as any sort of definitive authority need to stop.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: TomRakewell
Wikipedia is an entertaining novelty, but it's pretty horrible when people try to pass it off as a legitimate academic source. The "neutral point of view" garbage that's central to Wikipedia's doctrine makes it difficult to take strong authoritative stances on any topic, which hinders the ability to express an expert opinion. Furthermore, the lack of any barrier to entry means that an expert's opinion can be subject to being overruled by some random teenager who got promoted to moderator by writing thousands of entries on Harry Potter trivia. Add that to issues of rampant plagiarism, lack of source citation on thousands of articles, and delusions of grandeur by many Wikipedia members who outright view their project as a way to spite academic authority rather than embrace it, and you have a mess. The claim that it's a work in progress is also irrelevant, because the increasing scale of the site only creates more problems that need to be fixed and watched over, and as such there really is no sort of deadline or plan for when Wikipedia will consider itself a complete project and allow itself to by judged by the same rigorous standards as academic works.

What especially irritates me is the growing ubiquity of Wikipedia, namely that's it now impossible to a search on many academic topics without being flooded by the hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors out there that obscure legitimate sources. Furthermore, the problems of plagiarism and lack of citation become even more problematic because one can't parse who's copying whom and verify which information is legitimate.

Also, the Nature study comparing Britannica and Wikipedia was revealed to be fatally flawed, and Britannica published a lengthy rebuttal which made it appear that Nature was more interested in advancing some sort of controversial agenda than in presenting the facts (article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm).

I think Wikipedia is fine for what it is, but these pretenses of treating at as any sort of definitive authority need to stop.

Bingo.

I also have NEVER met a college professor that accepts Wiki as a valid cited source. They will specifically mention that Wikipedia is not to be cited.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: loki8481
as much as I believe any other tertiary source of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_source

nice jumping off points, but they can't replace primary sources and peer-review articles for serious research.

Correct.

Of course, but that's just common sense if you've had even the slightest experience with scientific reasoning. Anyone who would take everything Snopes or Wiki posted literally in all cases is not worth cnoversing with, probably.

Snopes is awesome to point people to when they send you e-mail forwards. For the more egregious ones I have "Reply All'd" to the whole list, with the snopes link and an explanation, that's always fun.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: torpid

What? Are you serious? First off, it said that some unusual trading activity did occur which SEEMED suspicious INITIALLY. Even if it were suspicious and didn't just seem that way or seem that way only at first, that does not mean that someone who had knowledge of 9/11 was the culprit, nor does it mean that there were large quantities involved.

It's impossible for Snopes to know what people were thinking or knew. At best it should have been listed as yellow for "identifies statements of undetermined or ambiguous veracity" listing it as false when all the real evidence shows it as true is just plain bad.

They don't have to know what people knew. If they investigate the trading activity and find that it is not actually suspicious, that is good enough. And that is apparently what they did.

 

[whistleclient]

for everyone who doesn't believe snopes, i have a nigerian prince friend who needs your help.

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: tangent1138


for everyone who doesn't believe snopes, i have a nigerian prince friend who needs your help.

do you know how powerful you become when people hold you as the greatest infallible source of truths in the world......you become powerful enough to convince people that you have a nigerian pprince that needs help .........and a bridge in brooklyn for sale......and a group of uncorrupt politicians who just want to help out the little guy.

 

[FoBoT]

Snopes yes / Wiki no

 

[clamum]

I use Wikipedia primarily to look up information related to computer science and software. So far it's been extremely helpful and I haven't witnessed much, if any, blatant misinformation. I just did a bunch of research relating to artificial intelligence, and from what I saw on Wikipedia, the stuff they had on A.I. bascially supported my university textbook.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
point us to something on Snopes you don't believe????

Snopes pretty much wrote that Trump lied about this incident when they did not have all the facts

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1497936&enterthread=y&arctab=y

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Snopes I believe, Wikipedia not so much.

yep

 

[FelixDeCat]

So many good replies in this thread!

 

[fitzov]

I believe everything that I read on the internets, unless it is contradicted by what I see on the TV.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Ah, I found a real example.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Put Paid

Claim: In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.

Status: False.

But then, reading further...

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11

So, if the unusual trading REALLY DID OCCUR, why is this claim listed as false?

You read further but not far enough.

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
point us to something on Snopes you don't believe????

Snopes pretty much wrote that Trump lied about this incident when they did not have all the facts

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1497936&enterthread=y&arctab=y

why is Trump assumed to be a reputable source, it has been proven prety often that he has a flair for largesse and exaggeration, and outright lies.

I think the reasoning for the false determination is the number of other celebrities that it has been attributed to.

 

[JDrake]

Wikipedia writes my essays for me.. it better be true!

 

[Beige]

I like going to wiki to look things up that im not sure about.
I would never use it for school though.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
While both sites are sometimes useful and or informative, no source is definative. I think both should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially Snopes! Sometimes they are so full of sh|t...and people believe it because they want to believe in something.

Some examples?

 

[A5]

Wikipedia is really good for referencing pop culture items, but I certainly take it with a large grain of salt for anything academic.

 

[SampSon]

You should take everything with a grain of salt.
There are no such things are "facts".